Fill - Free fillable Del 32.4 DBE Locational Issues For Implentation Of Knowledge Base (London School of Economics and Political Science, University of London) PDF form

DBE Project (Contract n° 507953)

Contract n° 507953

Workpackage 32

Regulatory Framework

Task B11: Knowledge Base of Regulatory Issues

Deliverable 32.4

Locational Issues for the Implementation

of the Knowledge Base

Project funded by the European

Community under the “Information

Society Technology” Programme

DBE Project (Contract n° 507953)

Contract Number: 507953

Project Acronym: DBE

Title: Digital Business Ecosystem

Deliverable N°: 32.4

Due date: 30/04/2006

Delivery Date : 30/04/2006

Short Description: Summary of empirical work completed to support D32.1 and

D32.2

Partners owning: LSE, Department of Media and Communications

(Gordon Gow, Panayiota Tsatsou, Silvia Elaluf-Calderwood,)

Partners contributed: LSE (Paolo Dini)

Made available to: All project partners and the EC

VERSIONING

VERSION

DATE

AUTHOR, ORGANISATION

26/03/2005

Tsatsou, Elaluf-Calderwood; LSE

01/04/2006

Included comments Dr Gow, LSE

10/04/2006

Included comments Dr Dini, LSE

27/10/2006

Revised version Tsatsou and Elaluf-

Calderwood

Quality check

Internal Reviewer: Tommi Rissanen (TCH)

Internal Reviewer: Andrea Nicolai (T6)

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.

To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/ or

send a letter to Creative Commons, 559 Nathan Abbott Way, Stanford, California

94305, USA.

Public

Del 32.4 Locational Issues for the Implementation of the Knowledge Base

DBE Project (Contract n° 507953)

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................4

1.0 Introduction..........................................................................................................7

2.0 Research Process and Methodology......................................................................9

2.1 Research Process and Considerations in the Field .............................................9

2.2 Methodology ..................................................................................................12

3.0 Reflection from the SMEs regarding DBE relationships as grounded in the

taxonomy .................................................................................................................17

3.1 Internal Issues arisen from the DBE environment and specific to the DBE

setting ..................................................................................................................17

3.2 External issues, as grounded in the taxonomy .................................................21

3.3 Section Summary ...........................................................................................23

4.0 Reflections of the SMEs as DBE actors: SME Software Service Providers, SME

Users and Business Analysts. Reflecting on the Building Blocks and Other Issues at

Stake........................................................................................................................24

4.1 SME Software Service Providers: Identification, Security and Privacy at the

forefront. Implications for the DBE future............................................................24

4.2 SME Users: Workability of the DBE platform, trust issues and implications for

the DBE evolution................................................................................................28

4.3 Business Analysts...........................................................................................32

4.4. Section Summary ..............................................................................................33

5.0 Sustaining Trust through Software Life-cycles and the contractual properties

interdependencies.................................................................................................3435

5.1 Software Life-cycles in the DBE and the Open Source Ideal...........................35

5.2 Software and Platform Development from a local-implementation perspective

.............................................................................................................................36

5.3 Implications for the DBE evolution ................................................................38

5.4 Section Summary ...........................................................................................39

6.0 Observations and Considerations........................................................................40

6.1 On the current taxonomy ................................................................................40

6.2 Other issues....................................................................................................41

7.0 Further research and preliminary recommendations............................................43

7.1 Future research based on taxonomy model......................................................43

7.2 Critical issues for DBE sustainability..........................................................4445

7.3 Recommendations and further work with other DBE workpackages ...............45

Appendices ..........................................................................................................4546

1. Interview Topic Guide..................................................................................4546

2. SMEs in the DBE .........................................................................................4647

3. Company Profile ..........................................................................................4748

4. Taxonomy: Knowledge Base of Regulatory Issues ...........................................52

Del 32.4 Locational Issues for the Implementation of the Knowledge Base

DBE Project (Contract n° 507953)

Executive Summary

The aim of this internal report is to present the final results from fieldwork following

the completion of M32.2 in October 2005. This document is to report on completed

empirical work of Task B11 in connection with the previous work carried out by the

Task, as well as in association with other Tasks of the WP32, while, as stated in the

workplan for WP32, Task B11 is structured in 4 stages: D32.1 and D32.2 as

theoretical frameworks for the Knowledge Base of Regulatory Issues and Taxonomy;

M32.2 and D32.4 as reports that present findings from engagement with sector

specific and local implementations.

This document reports on interviews with seven SME drivers selected to represent

key variables identified in the taxonomy of regulatory issues found in D32.2 and

originally investigated in M32.2. The intent of these findings is, in turn, to report on

sector-specific and local implementation issues, integrating them with the regulatory

issues identified and reported in M32.2.

Key findings in this report are as follows:

• Sector-specific and local implementation issues related to regulation and

trust: The aim of this document is to present the final findings on regulatory

concerns relating to sector-specific and local implementation issues, as these

have been described in documents D32.1, D32.2 and revealed empirically by

the results of interviews with DBE stakeholders. The following issues of

interest can be pointed out:

- Sector-Specific issues

a) Identification and Security: sector-specific issues engendering

business risks.

b) Privacy/Consumer Protection: risk associated with business clusters

consisting of companies sharing customer information in the same

business domain.

c) Contractual Issues: Contracts to adapt to different business domains,

suggesting their potential impact on the business potential of the

DBE.

- Local implementation issues

a) Local implementation of the DBE vision: a process that has to take

place through a small community with various layers of interfaces

between SMEs, developers and the users of SMEs, as well as the

regional drivers.

b) Gradual process of local implementation: this is a better way to

establish a meaningful local strategy for adoption and packaging of

DBE software and development in the business community.

• The taxonomy model: with respect to the building blocks of trust in different

business domains and localities, SMEs seem to confirm the validity of the

three building blocks of trust developed in the taxonomy model, whilst each

SME approaches these building blocks (privacy and consumer protection,

security, and jurisdiction) mainly from a sector-specific and local

implementation perspective.

Del 32.4 Locational Issues for the Implementation of the Knowledge Base

DBE Project (Contract n° 507953)

• Issues beyond the taxonomy model: as well as confirming relevant

regulatory issues with respect to trust and SME participation in Digital

Business Ecosystems, this report highlights issues regarded by the SMEs as

relevant to the sustainability of the project in the long term, such as DBE

Governance, DBE Legal Constituency and DBE platform workability.

The above issues are regarded as critical by the researchers and will need further

research in the future. Hence this document is also intended to provide empirically

generated insights for other workpackages that might be relevant to activities in the

field. Additionally, as the final report, this document is intended to identify priorities

for future research pertaining to the knowledge base of regulatory issues. The issues

identified with respect to future research are as follows:

• Future research into sector-specific and local implementation issues: With

respect to sector-specific and local implementation regulatory issues of

concern, the SMEs' views in this document seem to converge on ISUFI, as the

official undertaking of the above issues from legal experts could protect both

the business and technical potential of the DBE platform, making the goal of

sustainability and trust far more feasible in the future.

• Future research based on taxonomy model: based on the observations from

the field work, the taxonomy model developed in D32.2 was subjected to a

preliminary evaluation and further used to structure the design of research into

the usage scenarios presented in accordance with the following three

taxonomy perspectives:

- DBE relationship: DBE legal identity, integration of e-signatures, SME

competition, security, trust, reconciliation between the business objectives and

the technical models to work within the DBE environment and governance

issues.

- DBE actors: identification, security, contractual issues, DBE platform

workability, trust relationships and long-term commercial incentives for the

development of Open Source middleware.

- Software life-cycles: intellectual property issues, middleware ownership and

the Open Source ideal, lack of documentation for the DBE software features

and releases, and lack of sufficient commercial basis of the DBE platform.

These three taxonomy perspectives and the particular regulatory issues

identified in each of them could foster future research in the DBE with respect

to the evolving character of the Knowledge Base of Regulatory Issues, as well

as the necessary legal provisions and regulation implementation.

• Future research on DBE sustainability: additionally, this report has verified

critical issues from potential B2B practices that can affect the Digital Business

Ecosystem's future development. As it is necessary to define a short, medium

and long-term sustainability strategy for the DBE, it is equally necessary to

differentiate between the technical and business sustainability of the DBE

vision. Hence the SMEs’ perception of technical sustainability, the DBE

platform workability, and its current lack of business utility raise concerns

about the links between business objectives and commercialisation and the

technical models developed in the DBE environment, challenging both the

future engagement of the SMEs as well as the sustainability of the DBE itself.

Del 32.4 Locational Issues for the Implementation of the Knowledge Base

DBE Project (Contract n° 507953)

In terms of the business sustainability of the DBE vision, the issue of the legal

constituency of the DBE under European, national and local law, as well as the

role the business domain has in the adoption of this legal form in the standard

everyday B2B practices within the DBE, is of particular significance. Hence,

research into B2B governance should be high on the agenda in due course, as

it intrinsically affects the sustainability and future development of the project

and raises questions of one company governance entity vs. a multiple-

company type of foundation. The choice between an Open Source community

development model and a proprietary model in these last two issues will in

turn determine the feasibility of any future sustainability plan.

Del 32.4 Locational Issues for the Implementation of the Knowledge Base

DBE Project (Contract n° 507953)

1.0 Introduction

This document is the final report D32.4 for Task B11, Knowledge Base of Regulatory

issues, Workpackage 32, of the Digital Business Ecosystem (DBE) project. The intent

of this document is to present the findings from interviews with DBE stakeholders on

regulatory concerns related to sector-specific and local implementation issues, as

described in more detail in documents D32.1, D32.2 and M32.2.

This document reports findings on seven key drivers that were identified in three DBE

critical regions (West Midlands in the UK, Tampere Region in Finland, and Aragon in

Spain), while the interviews with company members of those regions (Drivers SMEs)

were completed in the period summer 2005-February 2006. Hence, one of the aims of

this work is to identify concerns about regulatory issues raised by those DBE

members in relation to the development and sustainability of the project when EU

funding ends.

In this introduction the aim is to review the final findings of Task B11, which are

detailed in deliverable D32.1 Literature Review, D32.2 Taxonomy and M32.2 internal

report on pilot empirical study from WP32, Task B11, Knowledge Base of Regulatory

Issues. In these reports, a number of regulatory issues were identified with respect to

the DBE vision and the practices of SMEs that might be involved in the DBE

evolution and sustainability. Also, a key finding from earlier work is that any

Regulatory Trust framework for the DBE needs in the first instance to develop trust at

different levels to contribute to the evolutionary process linked to the aims of the

ecosystem.

Moreover, this final deliverable of Task B11 provides further input to the research

work done by C46 (ISUFI) particularly with respect to the document M32.1 on

Knowledge Base Model of Regulatory Issues. In M32.1, ISUFI has provided a high-

order model of the taxonomy using BML, describing thus the initial architecture

design and specification related to the knowledge base model. In that sense, this

document aims to provide further input so that the architecture and the functionalities

of the Knowledge Base Model of the Regulatory Issues are further developed, with a

business model for the SMEs that will sustain the Regulatory Framework as it is built,

describing the tools and processes that will realise the creation and management of

knowledge related to the Regulatory Framework Knowledge Base.

A general theory has been derived from the available literature in the field and, within

the context of Digital Business Ecosystems, three building blocks of trust have been

highlighted as crucial to the viability and sustainability of the DBE:

• Trust in services and in technological solutions. This type of trust is understood to

be developed within the DBE, by developers and users who have confidence that

the basic infrastructure layer and supported applications provided by the ecosystem

are reliable.

• Trust in business activities. This type of trust is established in relation to expected

patterns of behaviour and organisational practices adhered to by the ecosystem

actors.

• Trust in Knowledge. This is a measure of confidence expressed in terms of

Del 32.4 Locational Issues for the Implementation of the Knowledge Base

DBE Project (Contract n° 507953)

symmetric access to information.

Each category of trust can be expressed as:

• Trust type X, defined as trust in the design of systems architecture and supported

services

• Trust type Y, defined as the trust of institutional and governance arrangements in

the DBE vision

• Trust type Z, defined as trust established through the ongoing co-operation and

contractual obligations between companies. This type of trust is dependent on both

the conduct of the SMEs and the existence of legal remedies to provide adequate

solutions in the event that breaches occur.

From deliverable document D32.2-“Taxonomy”, those three types of trust were

enhanced in layers based on the type of trust and business interaction, either business

to business (B2B) or business to consumer (B2C). In line with the focus of the DBE

itself, the targeted area of investigation is the business-to-business sector.

To address the concerns of such enterprises when developing e-business initiatives

and Digital Business Ecosystems, a number of building blocks, which represent the

domains of regulatory environment that are a priority concern when developing e-

business initiatives, are described below:

• Privacy and consumer protection, in which the individual rights and freedoms of e-

business users have to be taken into account.

• E-signatures and security, in which the concern is to ensure autonomy and cross-

border interoperability for e-business.

• Jurisdiction and consumer protection, in which a means for resolving cross-border

disputes is provided.

But to provide a deeper insight into the importance of some regulatory issues and

what might become of them during the evolution of the Digital Business Ecosystem,

trust types and building blocks must be considered from multiple points of view in

order to correspond with the multiple relationships that are expected to exist within a

dynamic DBE.

The approaches taken are:

〈 DBE relationships, where two main categories of issues are related to the DBE:

- Internal – those that have arisen from the DBE type of setting and or from

the ones linked to the DBE participants and their activities

- External – those that are not within the realm of the DBE environment

〈 DBE actors, in which DBE members and their partners link within the Ecosystem:

- SME Service Providers, providing digital services that use the DBE as an

infrastructure platform

- SME Users, use digital DBE services for their own business needs in a self-

consumption war of competition or in order to undertake transactions with

other DBE members

- Business Analysts, who have a function of bridging the two types of SMEs

〈 Software Life-cycles, which aim to address the concerns that arise during software

development:

- Rapid Application Development

Del 32.4 Locational Issues for the Implementation of the Knowledge Base

DBE Project (Contract n° 507953)

- Internal Development Tool

- Extreme Programming (XP)

- Open Source

A summary of how these approaches are represented in the taxonomy can be

summarised in Fig 1 below.

Figure 1: Taxonomy (D.32.2)

This document is divided into seven sections: section 2 explains the research process,

the methods and procedures applied to generate and analyse the data produced from

the field work; sections 3, 4, and 5 present main findings applied to the different

perspectives that are part of the DBE; section 6 is a summary of observations and

considerations to be taken into account, and finally section 7 is focused on

recommendations that can be applied to other workpackages and future research

identified as important to be developed.

2.0 Research Process and Methodology

This section describes the research process and theoretical considerations applied to

qualitative analysis of data collected from the SMEs in regards to Regulatory issues.

Included in this section there is a discussion in how the empirical cases were selected,

the preparatory stages, methodology, logic and logistics of the fieldwork, while an

overall assessment of the efficiency of the process of data collection and analysis is

attempted.

2.1 Research Process and Considerations in the Field

At the outset of the research process leading up to this report, initial discussions with

DBE project partners took place in order to understand the implementation timeline

Del 32.4 Locational Issues for the Implementation of the Knowledge Base

DBE Project (Contract n° 507953)

and possible usage scenarios. Furthermore, systematic network building with SMEs,

DBE project partners who had already approached some usage scenarios empirically

and other researchers in the field was employed to facilitate the most efficient

selection process, to establish a reliable profiling of candidates, as well as to increase

the accessibility to informants. As a result of this preliminary work, a clearer picture

of a number of considerations was formed to assist in the research design.

2.1.1 Definition of the scope of the fieldwork

With respect to the initial discussions, the reach and approach of the fieldwork, as

well as the overall focus of this document, the scope of this empirical approach to key

usage scenarios revolved around the following issues/questions:

Regulatory focus

〈 Focus defined in advance on the basis of the three building blocks of the

taxonomy.

〈 Open approach, based on cases to extract regulatory issues. Therefore, use of the

existing building blocks as support, but not as strict thematic boundaries, so that,

when new areas arise, these can be taken into consideration for further enrichment

of the existing taxonomy.

Industry/Sector

〈 Three regions were identified: West Midlands in the UK, Tampere in Finland and

Aragon in Spain, while a variety of sectors constituted the focus of the fieldwork.

The regions exhibit a diverse range of sectors. In the West Midlands there is some

variety of sectors with e-commerce, content management and accountancy

comprising the central business activities of the SMEs/Drivers. In Finland all the

engaged SMEs/Drivers act in developing Open Source software, whilst in Spain

the tourist sector dominates, with the involved Drivers developing travel agency

software, tourist management software and consultancy in e-commerce.

〈 Focusing on just one region ran the risk of not representing the DBE as a whole.

As the main aim of the task is to develop a methodology for populating the

articulated knowledge base, it could be helpful to develop the specific knowledge

base in several locations for populating the taxonomy.

Case definition

〈 A usage scenario was conceived as including several applications/actors and

focusing on particular regions. We decided to look at SMEs/Drivers in one or

several regions and talk to them about regulatory issues they found important for

joining the DBE. Given the current state of development of the DBE, we decided

that this was the most suitable approach.

How many cases?

〈 A total number of seven Drivers

selected for in-depth interviewing constitute the

usage scenarios employed for the empirical research of the task, integrating the

Drivers could be defined as SMEs which have the knowledge and expertise to manage technology in

the current intermediate stage of the DBE, and can be distinguished from SME users which can just

apply this technology when the latter if completed and ready for use.

Del 32.4 Locational Issues for the Implementation of the Knowledge Base

DBE Project (Contract n° 507953)

findings of the M32.2 internal report where five Drivers from West Midlands and

Finland had been interviewed. The final stage of the research included empirical

research conducted in Aragon where two Spanish Drivers were interviewed. Seven

cases are regarded as sufficient for the aims of this research and the identification

of sector-specific and local-implementation regulatory issues in the DBE.

DBE Actors

〈 We decided to interview only Drivers and not SMEs or Regional Catalysts for

reasons that are explained in more detail below.

2.1.2 Selection of empirical cases

Based on the scope and original evaluation of potential participants, further

discussions with the DBE participants themselves and DBE partners led to the

definition of the final list of Driver candidates. Initial discussion with Driver

candidates was then conducted to identify their potential for participating on the basis

of the scope of most relevant cases. Following this, definition of criteria for final

selection of cases was carried out and final assessment of feasibility and usefulness of

cases was based on the criteria described in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Selecting Cases

Defining the scope

Regulatory focus? What is the ‘case’?

Regions Sectors

Finland information systems integration

Aragon tourist sector (consultancy & software) 7 cases Drivers

W. Midlands e-commerce & accountancy

Selecting cases

〈 Relevance to the scope of the research

〈 Drivers willing (and practically able) to participate

〈 Anticipated richness of data

〈 Practical task constraints: budget, travel, and human resources

〈 Feasible timelines

According to the above figure, the sector-specific and local implementation criteria

have defined the overall scope of the field work, determining, in turn, the

identification of seven cases in three critical regions, West Midlands, Finland and

Aragon with respect to four key business domains: information systems integration

(Finland), e-commerce and accountancy (West Midlands), as well as management

software and e-commerce consultancy in tourist sector (Aragon). At the same time,

the selection of the usage scenarios relied on a certain number of considerations

regarding the relevance of the scope to the theoretical framework and the taxonomy of

the task, as well as on the influence of some rather structural factors, such as

Del 32.4 Locational Issues for the Implementation of the Knowledge Base

DBE Project (Contract n° 507953)

timelines, willingness of the Drivers selected, and possible task constraints (budget,

travel and human resources, etc).

2.1.3 Preparatory stage

After selecting the usage scenarios, we proceeded to devise and structure a rather

general interview schedule based on the generic level knowledge base resulting from

D32.1 findings (Appendix 1). The thematic frame of the topic guide was mainly based

on the main regulatory issues, but also included open questions for reporting

additional matters. The structure drew on the taxonomy presented in D32.2,

attempting to use the three-dimensional space of building blocks, trust types and

operational perspectives to structure the investigation.

Agreement on the timelines for empirical engagement with the selected Drivers was

reached and the interviews with the seven usage scenarios were conducted in the

period between the summer of 2005 and February 2006. The first five usage scenarios

in the regions of West Midlands and Finland were approached and interviewed over

the last summer, while the last two scenarios in the region of Aragon were

interviewed in February and under the light of the findings obtained from the first five

cases and reported in M32.2.

The selection of the conventional data analysis method of highlighting and picking up

on key points of the interview data was decided, while the usage of software, such as

ALCESTE and ATLAS/ti, was dismissed due to the rather limited length and number

of collected data. Hence, the interpretation of the results took place in the light of the

generic knowledge base and original taxonomy matrix, whilst some initial suggestions

were included, pointing to the necessity for further investigation of the regulatory

issues in the DBE that have so far been somewhat overlooked.

2.2 Methodology

2.2.1 Interviewing: Data collection method

Interview was employed as the method of data gathering, as it provides a number of

advantages and consists of data collection tools that are functionally compatible with

the objectives of the task. Additionally, interviewing provides the task with the

necessary flexibility and freedom for eliciting new themes of regulatory concern and

more implicit issues of regulatory relevance, both testing the taxonomy formulated in

D32.2 and allowing the emergence of new patterns of regulatory interest.

Other possibilities were considered for investigating the area of regulatory concerns

of SMEs in the DBE, but they were not suited to the task. One of these possibilities

was the use of a fully structured questionnaire and the survey research mechanisms to

obtain more quantitative data. However, the use of the survey as a technique could be

open to charges of inappropriateness, as the goal of the task is not a strictly

quantitative approach to SMEs’ and Drivers’ regulatory concerns towards their

potential of participating in the DBE. At the same time, survey is inappropriate for

such a small research sample and in particular for the investigation of a group of

people with their own business particularities and interests at stake, such as SMEs and

Del 32.4 Locational Issues for the Implementation of the Knowledge Base

DBE Project (Contract n° 507953)

Drivers in the DBE. Rather, aim of the task is to investigate SMEs’ and Drivers’

perceptions and evaluations of the three building blocks of regulatory issues raised by

theory while, simultaneously, pointing to other possible regulatory concerns of critical

interest for the DBE vision.

Interviewing was therefore employed as the appropriate research tool for approaching

SMEs, since it has the potential for identifying a number of regulatory concepts and

themes of association to the taxonomy. Devising a semi-structured questionnaire has

the advantage of ‘openness’, where new regulatory issues and concepts can be raised,

thus leading the task to a sort of testing for the articulated theory-base and the

taxonomy platform on which theory rests, while allowing particular patterns of

regulatory concern to emerge.

2.2.2. Logic and Logistics of the Fieldwork

The logic of the fieldwork was constructed in accordance with the vision of the

approach to regulatory issues that relate both to theory (three building blocks of

regulatory issues) and the taxonomy (the matrix of building blocks, trust types and

operational perspectives), while being potentially extended by current practices in

sector-specific and local implementation usage scenarios.

The goal of the task is not to propose any solutions to the regulatory issues raised by

the Drivers or to expose the potential of the DBE to address these issues effectively.

Rather, the aim is to identify regulatory issues of critical relevance to the SMEs when

deciding whether to join the DBE, either verifying the theory and taxonomy or

updating and modifying them to some extent. Furthermore, the exploration of forces

and factors influencing the current regulatory concerns in each of the selected three

regions and among the interviewed seven Drivers, bringing to the fore possible

implications for other workpackages (WPs), is of critical importance for the task.

Research aims were significantly facilitated by the openness that the Drivers

demonstrated in all seven cases and their willingness to express their thoughts and

concerns by referring in particular to issues related to regulation building in the DBE

relevant to their business characteristics, and locality facilitated significantly these.

On the basis of an extensive list of potential participants (see Appendix 2), a selection

procedure was followed, resulting in an overall sample of seven Drivers in West

Midlands, Finland and Aragon. The sample selection procedure rested primarily on

the credibility of this list, as other DBE partners had already contacted these Drivers.

From this perspective, the task proceeded to the selection of the sample of seven

Drivers on the basis of their sector characteristics, their business traits, their

availability and the frame of their engagement with the DBE. In parallel, their overall

profile was appropriate for the aims of the research on regulatory issues in the DBE,

by which means lessons could be learnt and findings used both as the basis for future

research and for regulatory implementation within the DBE.

The selected sample consists of three Drivers in the West Midlands (Pollard,

Openscape and Redenet), two in Finland (Nemein and Integratum) and another two in

Aragon (Barrabes, Gabilos SW).

The initial plan to research other types of SMEs

More information on the company and business activities of the sample of Drivers in Appendix 3.

Del 32.4 Locational Issues for the Implementation of the Knowledge Base

DBE Project (Contract n° 507953)

was abandoned due to time constraints. At the same time, the usage scenario from

Spain was initially put on hold due to uncertainties and rapid changes taking place on

the map of the participant SMEs in Spain over the past summer. This region was

finally engaged at the last stage of the research, in February 06, thus integrating the

empirical construction of the knowledge base of regulatory issues whilst reflecting on

the results of the pilot stage of research in West Midlands and Finland reported in

document M32.2.

2.2.3 Background on Participants

West Midlands: Pollard, Openscape, and Redenet

The three interviewees in the West Midlands were selected on the basis of their long

engagement with the DBE. At least two of them, Pollard and Openscape, were

generally concerned about the present and future of the DBE. Moreover, the

interviewees in the West Midlands represent a spectrum of business domains,

covering the areas of online accounting, e-commerce and web design and

consultancy. Hence, they give to the task the opportunity to identify regulatory issues

of concern at various levels of engagement and in different business domains,

allowing the articulation of arguments regarding the sector-specific dimension of the

aspired Knowledge Base of Regulatory Issues.

Finland: Nemein and Integratum

The Drivers in Finland constitute a rather different usage scenario from the one in the

West Midlands. More specifically, both Drivers in Finland belong to the same

business sector, developing activities in Java-based enterprise information systems

integration, while they constitute active contributors towards the technical

implementation of the DBE platform. More specifically, they both have undertaken

the following integration projects within the DBE:

〈 Nemein work and position within the DBE:

〈 Integrating the Open PSA project management system into the DBE

framework.

〈 Enabling companies to share project information and expense reports

automatically with their partners and contractors.

〈 Integratum work and position within the DBE:

〈 Integrating CentraView OSS CRM system to DBE Framework and

implement a service that allows users to import and export CentraView

Contact data.

〈 Importing and exporting contact data using XML files.

Hence, the Drivers in Finland allow the task to proceed to a comparative analysis of

the initial identification of sector-specific and local implementation regulatory issues,

reflecting on the generic level taxonomy.

Aragon: Barrabes and Gabilos

The Spanish Drivers constitute centralised business networks, where ITA (Regional

Del 32.4 Locational Issues for the Implementation of the Knowledge Base

DBE Project (Contract n° 507953)

Catalyst) is at the epicentre controlling them. In Aragon, all engaged Drivers

belong

to one sector, the tourist sector, and carry out diverse programs that cover the

management of the SMEs and, in particular, the management of rural tourism, the

management of hotels, accounting, turnover, payrolls, boards of repayment,

accounting general plan, and so on.

Although both interviewed Drivers belong to the same business sector, their business

activities vary, with Barrabes being a regional influencer and a famous

example of a

successful IT SME in the area developing activities in e-commerce and consultancy in

the tourist sector, while Gabilos develop management software for other SMEs in the

same sector. More specifically:

• Barrabes:

• E-commerce industry.

• Consultancy, dedicated to help Spanish companies develop their

businesses around the world.

• Communication link between IT developers and tourism businesses.

• Gabilos:

• Software programs that cover the management of the SMEs, such as

management of rural tourism, management of hotels, accounting,

turnover, payrolls, boards of repayment, accounting general plan, etc.

Hence, the interviews in Aragon allow the task to approach regulatory issues in

accordance with the views of Drivers attempting to boost business within the DBE

platform, offering thus a different perspective of sector-specific and local

implementation issues while reflecting, validating and/or updating the generic level

taxonomy with the issues identified at this final stage of research.

2.2.4 Method of Analysis

After the sample selection and on the basis of the generic taxonomy platform

generated in the D32.2 deliverable (See Figure 1: Taxonomy D32.2), the research

drew on the taxonomy, in the first instance, in order to allow the application of this

platform to the particular selected usage scenarios and the testing, consequently, of

the theoretically-based foundations of the Knowledge Base of Regulatory Issues.

In accordance with this generic taxonomy platform, each selected Driver was asked

about issues raised in the taxonomy, while space was given for additions or

modifications, as the taxonomy presents generic layers of regulatory concern, serving

the identification of a broad set or regulatory issues, without however specifying

whether and how these issues are of relevance to a specific set of business

circumstances. Therefore, the sample of seven Drivers and their reflections on

diverging regional and business domain issues constitute the key research tool, so that

the attempted and empirically-founded Knowledge Base mirrors different local

contexts and business/sector characteristics, shedding light on sector-specific and

Currently, in the region of Aragon there are four engaged Drivers: EON, DBS, Barrabes, Gabilos. The

two Drivers that were not interviewed by the task, EON and DBS, develop travel agency middleware

and have been previously contacted by other DBE partners.

Barrabes was chosen by Microsoft as a worldwide example of e-business model for SMEs at the start

of the Internet boom in the middle of the 1990s

Del 32.4 Locational Issues for the Implementation of the Knowledge Base

DBE Project (Contract n° 507953)

local implementation regulatory issues of interest (Fig. 3).

Figure 3: Taxonomy and pilot usage scenarios

Usage scenarios

Taxonomy: Knowledge Base of

Regulatory Issues

Trust

Types*

Building blocks*

Operational

Perspectives*

Finland

(OS companies)

Trust X

Trust Y

Trust Z

Privacy & consumer protection

E-signatures & authentication

Jurisdiction & consumer

protection

DBE Relationship

DBE Actors

Software Lifecycle

West Midlands

(E-commerce &

accountancy, web design &

consultancy)

Trust X

Trust Y

Trust Z

Privacy & consumer protection

E-signatures & authentication

Jurisdiction & consumer

protection

DBE Relationship

DBE Actors

Software Lifecycle

Aragon

(E-commerce, consultancy

and management software

in the tourist sector)

Trust X

Trust Y

Trust Z

Privacy & consumer protection

E-signatures & authentication

Jurisdiction & consumer

protection

DBE Relationship

DBE Actors

Software Lifecycle

* See Appendix 4.

2.2.5 Interview Guide and Guidelines

A single interview topic guide was used throughout the interviews to map out the field

and achieve the operational aims of the task. More specifically, the interview topic

guide addressed the main issues raised in the literature review, namely the three

building blocks, while the platform of relating them to trust types and operational

perspectives was also included. Furthermore, it was important to ensure a degree of

openness, whilst interviewees in different sectors come across different issues and

concerns. For instance, a Driver in the West Midlands acting in the area of e-

Commerce is more likely than an integration and software development company in

Finland to come across issues of privacy and consumer protection. Therefore, the

treatment of different Drivers had to be mindful and the interview topic guide was to

reflect sufficiently the varying areas of regulatory concerns.

Since the purpose of the interviews was to understand and map out the legal concerns

of key business actors throughout their business activities and within a collaborative

business environment, the interview topic guide revolved around areas of

investigation where the information obtained could be used for the understanding of

how participation in the DBE can be successfully encouraged and sustained. What

follows is a brief outline of the employed interview guide in all seven usage scenarios,

while some, more or less minor variations were committed with regards to the

characteristics and particularities of each usage scenario (see Appendix 1):

〈 Background questions in terms of company profile and current business activities.

〈 Main regulatory concerns and legal issues as these were raised by theory and

reflected by the Drivers in all three regions.

〈 Regulatory concerns and further legal issues raised by current business practices of

Del 32.4 Locational Issues for the Implementation of the Knowledge Base

DBE Project (Contract n° 507953)

the Drivers from both business domain and local perspective.

〈 Underlying factors influencing Drivers’ concerns with emphasis given on the

business domain and locality of the interviewed Drivers.

〈 Finally, the challenges for the DBE were investigated, and the potential future

prospects of the DBE environment were explored in detail.

Therefore, by understanding the legal needs and regulatory concerns of the seven

participant Drivers, a sustainable Knowledge Base of Regulatory Issues was built up,

and a range of key sector-specific and local implementation regulatory issues were

identified, facilitating thus the transition from the DBE as a project to the DBE as an

actual collaborative digital business community. Consequently, what follows is a

more analytical approach to the reflections from the Drivers in all three regions, in

terms of DBE relationships, regulatory issues stemming from the three key building

blocks, and trust through software life cycles and development, thereby bringing the

sector-specific and local implementation character of the Knowledge Base and the

potential implications for the DBE future to the fore.

3.0 Reflection from the SMEs regarding DBE relationships as

grounded in the taxonomy

As explained in section 1, there are two types of DBE relationships:

• Internal (which have arisen from the DBE environment, or are linked to its

participants and activities).

• External (which are not currently within the scope of the DBE project

evolution).

The internal relationships may have initially begun as external relationships but have

since been formalised. It is anticipated that external relationships will in future be

internalised within the SME under the DBE evolution process and therefore both

categories require particular attention and regulatory provision. Therefore, in the

following two sub-sections we describe some of the core issues in this matter, while a

summary of findings is provided in the third sub-section, with particular emphasis

placed on the issue of applying the Open Source approach to the DBE relationships.

3.1 Internal Issues arisen from the DBE environment and specific to the

DBE setting

The interviewed SMEs expressed concerns about how the DBE legal identity will be

defined at international, national and local levels: will the DBE legal identity be valid

and recognised at EU level and in other world economic blocks, and, if that is the

case, which type of identity will it be? The same is applicable at the national and local

levels of jurisdiction. Doubts about the legal standing of the DBE as an organisation

must not be overlooked since they could lead to a breakdown in trust, not necessarily

between participants, but in the organisation as an entity. This problem is particularly

acute given the differing and sometimes contradictory legislation relating to business

law in the EU member states.

Del 32.4 Locational Issues for the Implementation of the Knowledge Base

DBE Project (Contract n° 507953)

These concerns were reflected by all SMEs, hence the comments included here are

not linked to a sector-specific domain but they can be thought of as applicable to all

SMEs. Therefore, there is a strong link to sustainability models and long-term

development of the project as a business case voiced as a major concern by the SMEs.

When asked about the legal identity aspects of the DBE, Gabilos expressed the

following views:

Gabilos: “…We expect that and we’ve had a European standard in terms

and where we are clear, we think, too, that there must be a signature

and other things that we are strictly speaking yes, an identity but a

European standard to be all SMEs in the same, in the same page…”

A further issue identified is that, as the number of DBE participants increases, the

number of legal agreements between participants increases faster and scalability of

the legislation becomes an issue. As the DBE emerges from a set of pioneers to

become a network, it must pay close attention to flexibility and extensibility in

establishing the framework of legislation. For instance, when asked if state legislation

might pose an obstacle to the DBE, Nemein stated that this would especially be the

case for small operations:

Nemein: "...For one-man company like myself or just very small

companies working together one issue is that if such groups are going

and then try doing larger and larger projects, the amount of legal

bindings among the partners is going to grow exponentially basically,

and that is something that would probably benefit quite a lot if

there would be some common framework on, legal framework on how to

handle such large-scale contract …"

A specific example of this concern is the issue of e-signatures. Currently, each EU

country has defined certification processes for validation of e-signatures. In cases

where DBE partners exchange e-documents, how is the integrity and validity of such

e-documents under several different national legislations to be ensured? The work

involved in establishing a contract between entities in two countries, already

considerable, is multiplied many times when further countries are involved. This is

expressed in the following view of Nemein regarding their concerns about the

legislature status of the DBE with respect to e-signatures:

Nemein: "...it would be nice to have a commonly accepted system for

that. But as long as there is no such thing, then basically…well…the

approach so far is just to have legal work outside the system.

Basically, nothing more works …and the other approach taken for

example by this French company that I have been working with is that

the legal work is pretty low and like just submitting a work form and

confirming by any way that ‘okay I am going to do this work and then

you are going to pay me’. That is obviously something that does not

scale up to very big projects, it is like a two days work, half a

week on that kind of contract and if something goes wrong then nobody

knows what to do…[laughs]…but it is like one way to avoid the

question..."

Furthermore, the SMEs interviewed expressed concern about the terms under which

governance will be established within the DBE; there are two main streams of thought

in this matter: that of the open source and that of the proprietary developers. For the

SMEs, participation in DBE governance is expressed by how the DBE sustainability

can be achieved. For some developers the Open Source software development is

regarded as the preferred choice. The Open Source community views this model as

Del 32.4 Locational Issues for the Implementation of the Knowledge Base

DBE Project (Contract n° 507953)

successful, in particular when applied to the issue of scaling the legislative framework

and when it is able to provide the necessary framework for the implementations of

mechanisms, e.g. for e-signatures, which are released into the public domain. Seeming

incompatibilities between such mechanisms can then be addressed by referencing the

source code and national legislation. The SMEs’ views can be then grouped in three

main models.

The first model preferred by the Open Source community of DBE developers aims to

have an Open Source community at least in principle. However there are concerns as

to how this can be achieved. Nemein, for example, were asked to express their

concerns about the further development and share of the knowledge and technology in

an Open Source environment such as the DBE:

Nemein: Well, as I said previously, I am a bit concerned because at

the moment the community is not that big around the actual DBE

project and many parts of the system are still closed in a sense that

we do not have or have seen where it is at the moment or where it is

going… I think that at the moment as…as…there are quite few driver

companies working or external people working on the system. I think

that the pressure for opening up the development and…it raises

concern of (?) that the platform is not that big, it is probably not

as feasible as it could be.

B11: Why is that? What are the factors that make the participants not

be that open contributors?

NEMEIN: Well, in many cases is just the credence of doing anything.

Basically doing many things in a closed manner is okay, I am building

these components and it should be like this when it is ready. So I am

working on this until it is ready and then it is done. Changing from

that mindset to one that, okay, the system is basically holding it

open from the one and…

The second model is provided by the proprietary developers, orientated more towards

getting one of the bigger DBE partners such as Sun Microsystems or IBM to hold the

governance of the DBE until the project is self-sustainable. However, there are

concerns about the fairness of these views. Openscape, for example, were asked about

their view of how to keep alignment between developers (pro Open Source) and the

directions issued by main or bigger partners:

Openscape: "...You've got to be careful there; the only reason open

source is commercial making money for people out there is that

someone is getting a benefit; we've got to make sure there is the

right balance. Developers might spend 5 years doing this and nothing

happens. You have to market to business people. You want to make it

successful because if it's not commercial it's going to die.

B11: Both big and small players are capable of making it successful

given that they are treated equally.

Openscape: A bigger player might not have the urgency for it to

happen; a smaller player might have more urgency. There might be a

conflict there; these kinds of issues about where the focus will be

placed need to be handled..."

In the third model, mixed/hybrid components of both development models seem to be

incorporated as needed. Specifically, it is envisaged that a specification comprising

Del 32.4 Locational Issues for the Implementation of the Knowledge Base

DBE Project (Contract n° 507953)

interfaces and a reference implementation of core functions is released into the public

domain, but both proprietary and open source developers are then free to implement

as they wish. An analogy may be made with the very widespread and successful J2EE

application server specification, produced by Sun Microsystems along with a simple

prototype implementation and released into the public domain, which has been

implemented and extended by both open source companies (e.g. JBoss) and

proprietary (e.g. BEA Weblogic). This is an alternative vision for the DBE, which

was discussed with Pollard. More specifically, the SMEs were asked to explain how

they visualise the different business models available, and to what extent their opinion

is influenced by the discussions between proprietary and Open Source models:

Openscape: "...I think that open source is pretty nearly voluntary,

so if you're talking about low license fees that's good enough for

me. If I was talking about how to make a living out of open source I

think you'd be happy to go and do something, support something, do a

specific development, manage a particular project. We're finding in

common with many other businesses that large customers don't like any

large sums of capital in one go. They prefer something closer to a

revenue model rather than a capital model. We can make money out of

very small businesses of about £10/month. That fits in quite well

with what the DBE's doing..."

Gabilos in turn believes in generating a mixed model that includes a number of

enterprises sharing the management of the DBE consortium. This opinion is somehow

shared by Barrabes with a slight difference: to have a major partner taking control on

a temporal basis of the consortium.

Gabilos says (translation from Spanish): “...for the SMEs, if there

is a leader then it is more convenient to the SMEs; the problem with

too much democracy is that nothing finishes or it is being completed.

The final objective of the DBE is sustainability. The best thing to

do is to have a model of 3 or 4 companies…maybe 5, that there is

always someone that is pulling it as leadership because the most

important thing that matters is not to have an infrastructure

organisation of any kind. Instead, it is to have at least one that

moves forward and can actually continue delivering the platform…”

Pollard was also asked to give their opinion about how the technologies can be

returned to the Open Source community:

Pollard: "... We are looking at the model we use to sell to other

newspapers, but it would probably be fairly specific - open source

newspapers - that conceivably could work. If we look at our company,

we are not open source because we're too small to support the

overhead of running that kind of project. It's the issue of keeping

the product on course and developing rather than trying to manage a

set of other developers. Also a very different style of code is used

for the framework, and you have to make some conscious design

decisions if you want to do that, and you write more, so again there

would be an overhead in creating a framework. Our strategy for

interoperability is XML services, so in that respect we fit quite

well with what the DBE is doing, and it should be possible to use our

products in time when all the XML is developed and web services are

published..."

Pollard in other instance were asked for their views on the degree of engagement with

open source they aim for, and in doing so how they relate to issues about governance

and styles of governance, and community management, foundation models, voting

Del 32.4 Locational Issues for the Implementation of the Knowledge Base

DBE Project (Contract n° 507953)

systems, etc. The angle presented was the one of trust as per collaborative work in an

Open Source environment:

Pollard: "...you have to allow for a variety of models as not

everyone works the same way. I think you have to get people with

different types of expertise to want to work on the project, and if

you prescribe a particular model, it's a sure way of shutting out a

group of people who don't want to work that way. I think where you're

probably strongest is where you define standards for interfaces and

it's down to individuals to make their products work with those.

Therefore we could have as many different models as we wanted...."

However, Pollard were not concerned with different models of governance coexisting

in the DBE environment:

Pollard: "...I wouldn't mind. What would worry me is if I was

required to buy large chunks of proprietary code simply to get the

job done but if it were genuinely open source I wouldn't mind..."

The overall view is that without laying down some clear route to follow soon after the

money that has helped to start the project has run out, there will be no possibility of

sustainability. Openscape also shared this view and concern, especially in regards to

the project funding coming to an end. How at the end of this process DBE partners are

starting to think about the kinds of issues a governance body would take on and the

various different kinds of models of governance in the open source community were

issues that followed up in the discussion:

Openscape: "...it's a sensitive issue because you can lose people at

that point if there's suddenly a board full of IBM people or people

who aren't traditionally seen as good community members; it could be

a point at which people get bored because there's an element of

trust. A company has to be commercial - it has to be able to survive.

That should be at the top for all companies. Fairness should be in

there somewhere - there should be a sort of referee otherwise the

smaller guys will have no chance..."

A summary of the issues discussed in this section is presented in section 3.3. In the

section 3.2 below the discussion is focused on DBE external issues grounded in the

taxonomy (D32.2); some of those issues are also DBE-internal, but due to their

complexity they overlap with or are repeated as DBE-external issues.

3.2 External issues, as grounded in the taxonomy

External issues as referred to in the taxonomy, such as competition rules, consumer

and data protection regulations, are also concerns for the SMEs. These issues touch

upon the profitability of the DBE enterprise as a whole, since without the security

provided by the legislative framework, made available electronically and in an easily

accessible way, the commercial viability of the DBE is jeopardised.

Openscape, for example, were asked to express their views about competitiveness

increasing the commercial impact of software releases developed by their company:

Openscape: "...Yes, there has to be some commercial edge to it. If

this thing can be shown to be successful there are going to be more

and more people who want to contribute to it. They will see that they

Del 32.4 Locational Issues for the Implementation of the Knowledge Base

DBE Project (Contract n° 507953)

can make money from it and that is going to be the key driver - if

they can make money from this. Some are going to say: ‘we want to

innovate this’. Before they can move forward, they need to see that

it is a viable thing as well. If they don't see it as viable they

will lose interest and it will die..."

Another concern for Openscape was the use of Digital signatures for business outside

the DBE:

Openscape: "... That's the holy grail of the industry. Everybody

wants it but nobody's been able to deliver anything like that...

... If the solution's out there, lots of people are going to use it,

but for whatever reason people aren't ready; the market is fairly

fragmented in that respect.

B11: You mentioned the holy grail of the fragmented pieces of code

that can be integrated, but from the point of view of contracts you

can have these different components somewhere out there that you want

to use, but to use them you have to establish contact with the

companies that are the owners of the IP. Do you think that this can

be done or does your company find it attractive from the point of

view of doing it online, or do you need to know the company on a one-

to-one basis before you can establish contact?

Openscape: It depends on the transaction. Let's take something like

music - people can evaluate their fees based on a benchmark - they

can say if they're earning about 100 then everything seems to be OK

in the system. You have to find areas like that where people can

assess whether it's working - no-one is cheating them - and one

benchmark could be if the system is generating the same kind of

revenue as you were generating before the system, then you're OK but

if it suddenly starts going down you can start questioning it.

B11: …and do you think that this would work for components?

Openscape: I think software's a good one to do, if we can get it

working, I think it's a long way away. I think DBE should have the

kind of plan that says we're aiming for this point but should have

something that even if it's not entirely successful it will be

successful enough to keep the momentum going. Something like a Plan

B, C and D, each with its own entity to be evaluated for commercial

viability. You have to look for contingencies down the line, because

this will not go the way we're sitting down talking about it now. I

think there should be different alternatives and each one should be

evaluated from a commercial perspective. Maybe you can write a

minimal service, and at least if it's being talked about that will be

a commercially viable thing that will keep it going...."

Barrabes expressed those concerns in terms of security and actual

implementation and usage of e-signatures in the context of Spanish

SMEs:

Barrabes: I worked on security for some companies, I tell you, all

the governments in Europe, you know, all the programs, they have this

concern with this e-signature. So if you’re not going to be on the

spot, you’re going to have to be with it because even to get

government support for projects…so I’m going to do something new and

loads of people are going to do work on that for free for your

project, because the government’s already doing it. So you’re going

to have to be in the plans, of course I will be there too.

Del 32.4 Locational Issues for the Implementation of the Knowledge Base

DBE Project (Contract n° 507953)

B11: These signatures have security but they don’t really have the

trust of companies. All they do is to tell you that they are who they

say they are. If you are good or bad or indifferent. It doesn’t help

you with an online report for people. Do these e-signatures deal

with, are they widely in use? I mean people using it.

Barrabes: Say not all…1% of Spanish companies. But you know, it is

something the government’s very concerned about, all the programmes,

all the new things, they’re going to have e-signatures.

The issues listed as internal are also external issues but it is reasonable to believe that

over time these issues will evolve as the DBE vision is grounded. At this point, the

actor identity factor is another important dimension to be taken into account when

issues of regulation and governance in the DBE are under scrutiny. To complete this

section a bullet point summary is presented in 3.3

3.3 Section Summary

As discussed in section 3.1, the analysis completed in this section covers the generic

concerns expressed by the SMEs regarding the DBE. In this part of the analysis there

is a lack of issues that can be identified as sector-specific or domain specific, as the

topic is common to the overall view of the DBE community. Listed below are the

three main points identified as serious concerns:

• First, regarding the DBE legal identity, a common view that whatever this

legal identity will be, there should be an EU standard.

• Second, a serious concern about how sustainability can be developed within

the DBE internal relationships, trust and security, as well as the reconciliation

between the business objectives and the technical models to work within the

DBE environment.

• Third, the DBE governance directly linked to sustainability and the viability of

a one-company governance entity vs. a multiple company type of foundation.

The diversity of opinions expressed by the SMEs in these three areas highlights, in the

view of the researchers, the need actively to seek participation of the SMEs in the

current internal discussion about the DBE future for a positive outcome in the

direction of the project’s future.

In section 3.2, regarding external issues that are of a generic concern to SMEs, there

were also three points raised, which will require special care as the project evolves

outside its research scope:

• First, SME competition, understood as the role of security in establishing trust

in the system for competition between DBE members.

• Second, privacy, understood as ways of enabling consumer and data protection

for B2B and B2C DBE relationships that are internal.

• Third, the points raised above differ between sectors and business domains in

which the SMEs are situated.

Del 32.4 Locational Issues for the Implementation of the Knowledge Base

DBE Project (Contract n° 507953)

Overall, the issues arising out of DBE relationships, and particularly the concerns

about DBE legal entity, integration of e-signatures and the implications in terms of

governance, bring the document to the point where we need to look more carefully at

the specific reflections from the Drivers as DBE actors and within a complex matrix

of relationships. Hence, the following section presents the case of the SMEs as DBE

actors and the different types of relationships developed by the SMEs on those roles.

4.0 Reflections of the SMEs as DBE actors: SME Software Service

Providers, SME Users and Business Analysts. Reflecting on the

Building Blocks and Other Issues at Stake

One of the key aspects of the Knowledge Base of Regulatory Issues is how the issues

raised by the building blocks have been represented by the views of various DBE

actors, such as SME Service Providers, SME Users and Business Analysts. In

addition, these actors can potentially contribute to the highlighting of other issues that

theory has not identified as yet, while the regulatory impact of those issues can be of

particular importance for the completion of the existing theoretical framework, as well

as for the update of taxonomy platform.

4.1 SME Software Service Providers: Identification, Security and Privacy at

the forefront. Implications for the DBE future

To some significant extent, SME Software Service Providers, mainly represented by

the Drivers in Finland, are the actors who can considerably help the Task identify

issues relevant to particular DBE partners and analyze these issues according to the

views of those who provide digital (software component) services and use the DBE as

an infrastructure platform. Therefore, the reflections from this particular category of

DBE actors can potentially shed light on issues and concerns which mainly stem from

the very inside of the project and are of particular interest to the articulation and

future viability of the Knowledge Base of Regulatory Issues.

Overall, SME Software Service Providers underline the problem of different national

regulations across Europe while being particularly concerned about the formation of a

sound Knowledge Base of Regulatory Issues and examining the impact of the

different regulatory schemes on the e-signatures system in the DBE. Furthermore,

they are significantly concerned about the insufficiently open source character of the

project, while maintaining that conflicting business interests amongst different

localities and various business domains are unlikely to undermine the open source

character of the DBE. Finally, and from a purely regulatory perspective, they are in

particular concerned about the following two key categories of regulatory issues.

4.1.1. Identification and Security: sector-specific issues and their importance for

business

In general, SME Software Service Providers raise the identification and security as

the two most important issues of regulatory interest, while approaching them from a

rather business perspective. They mostly emphasize that the architecture of the DBE

platform, as it has been built until now, does not ensure the secure transfer of data and

the identification of both parties to a communication within the platform, jeopardizing

Del 32.4 Locational Issues for the Implementation of the Knowledge Base

DBE Project (Contract n° 507953)

thus the overall security of the platform. More specifically:

Identification

Identification is raised as an issue of common concern, as well as of particular

business interest for the SMEs, whereas SME Software Service Providers themselves

are currently in the process of solving this issue with the assistance of the relevant

DBE partner in Ireland. Hence, when asked to inform the Task about concerns

regarding the potential of identification within the DBE platform, Nemein and

Integratum stated respectively:

Nemein: "...as the DBE identification environment is now, basically

the platform itself gives no guarantee on…if I like some of the

system and start looking for, okay, I want to find Nemein’s open DSS

system through the DBE platform and then a get a reference to the

system and there is no guarantee that there is actually a system and

then I could have some sensitive project data there that is not meant

for other than Nemein. Unless I can get a guarantee that this is

really, really a reference to them, Nemein system, I can’t trust the

system to transfer the data I want to transfer. That is I think the

main issue we had...

Integratum:...yeah, we are also concerned about that because if we

are transferring data, we have to know where the data are coming from

and where they are going and…so, that is our case as well..."

The identity issue in the DBE platform, as it has been articulated by both SMEs,

engenders business risks that the SMEs themselves declare they would rather avoid,

bringing thus to the fore security questions of a rather broader scope.

Security

Hence, what follows is the SME Software Service Providers’ consideration that the

identification issue is tightly related to serious security risks and the danger of data

loss during data transfer within the DBE platform. Nemein, for example, were

concerned about the danger to DBE participants presented by security flaws:

Nemein: "... it is like you compare it to a situation where we didn’t

have this network and I was like…a…submitting my early reports and

past reports with the Nemein, I could basically sign and seal all of

them in an envelope and give them to a trusted carrier to hand them

to Nemein. This is basically what the proposed identification system

does.…at the current level, we are basically writing the notes and

the postcards and giving them to the next person on the street…’well,

I would like this to be handed to Nemein but do whatever you

want’…yeah, there is no guarantee on who is going to read it along

the way and if never even it arrives at the destination……and nobody

tampers with it..."

The SMEs who already use the platform as an infrastructure, contributing furthermore

to the provision of its constituent software components, identify security and identity

as issues that could make them avoid transferring volumes of sensitive data through

the platform in the future. As a result, these issues might entail possible implications

for authentication and consumer protection, which has also been pointed out in the

second category of regulatory issues.

4.1.2 Privacy/Costumer Protection and Contractual Issues: business domain and risks

Del 32.4 Locational Issues for the Implementation of the Knowledge Base

DBE Project (Contract n° 507953)

at the epicentre

Since SME Software Service Providers mostly deal with software management and

clients having private data, they have expressed a strong concern regarding the extent

to which the existing platform is in a position to ensure the confidentiality of data and

consumer protection. This, in turn, raises the issue of contracts and agreements

between contractors, as the argument that different terms and conditions with respect

to consumer data should apply to different business domains has been broadly raised.

Privacy/Consumer Protection

Drivers such as Integratum indicate that the above concerns about security and

identification are associated with their fears about risks to consumer information,

while pointing to the important role that different business domains play in the way

that these issues should be regulated:

Integratum: “I got this feeling that security and authorization are

not yet implemented at all in the DBE. So, I am waiting…for some

implementers to see what they’ve got to offer to us…and our product,

which we are going to integrate, is related to costumer information

and costumer history and those kinds of…a…data…because…a…there are

some data that other companies probably would not like other partners

to see because it is CRM system…"

Additionally, the SMEs highlighted the issue of risk related to clusters of companies

sharing customer information at certain level. At this point, Integratum supports the

division of the overall DBE business spectrum by business clusters, illustrating the

necessity for tackling this issue from a business perspective when regulating.

Contractual Issues

Privacy and consumer protection evince other issues regarding contracts, as well as

contractual terms and conditions. Hence, after the SMEs took a look at the contract

creation demo

that the relevant DBE partner has made available, Integratum argued

that contracts need to adapt to different business domains, as a single contract will not

be in a position to cover different regulatory concerns raised in different domains:

Integratum: "...contractual issues are somehow…since they are not

clear to us…from the business point of view of course…how to make

business from the DBE is something that we have to develop somehow…it

is not clear yet. There is a plan of course but how can we, as a

software company, get business from the DBE?"

As an outcome, Nemein suggested a common legal framework which will enable the

mutual building of trust amongst DBE participants, while Integratum proposed, from

a sector-specific perspective, the creation of industrial clusters which will allow the

The demo shown does not create a contract; it only creates a PDF version of a standard form of

contract to be validated by lawyers. This is because of the lack of authentication; therefore the

document lacks legal value. This demo is still underdeveloped and a new version of it is on pending

release.

Likewise, we notify that SMEs belonging to the same business domain encounter similar concerns on

contractual issues:

NEMEIN: “ ... a bit concerned about what is the real contract status of this work and so far we have been basically

avoiding that question…so it is by luck hard-dependent... you can basically want to have some…sort of

mechanism...without doing all the traditional paper work and that is basically something that is a big question on

how that should be handled so that is legally binding and everything goes…goes well basically...It is obviously

waiting, as these kinds of contract and networks probably spread across national borders and the regulatory issues

become more pressing because the legislations vary…”

Del 32.4 Locational Issues for the Implementation of the Knowledge Base

DBE Project (Contract n° 507953)

contract creation and the non-conflict of business interests within a common

regulatory framework:

Nemein: “...the amount of legal bindings among the partners is going

to grow exponentially, and that is something that would probably

benefit quite a lot if there would be some common framework on, legal

framework on how to handle such large-scale contracts…networks

basically and how trust and responsibility are handled in such cases.

I think that at the moment the current legislation does not meet

those needs as it could…

Integratum: …so the original idea…I think…for the DBE vision is that

there should be some kind of industrial clusters which use this

software…these…would not…I don’t think that the DBE serves two, four

companies there, there and there…they should be related somehow…like

synergies..."

Furthermore, Integratum pointed out that the use of cluster infrastructure in which

DBE partners will build services can be affected by technical problems (downtime,

failures, etc) and needs to be addressed within the DBE sustainability vision.

Finally, they underlined the necessity for hiring a lawyer, while suggesting the

potential impact of contractual issues on the business potential of the DBE, bringing

thus to the fore the importance of sector-specific considerations within the DBE

4.1.3 Implications for the DBE evolution

The above regulatory concerns seem to put at risk trust and responsibility in the DBE,

as SME Software Service Providers argued about the importance of trust while

underlining the possible risks that the above issues might entail for future trust and

responsibility amongst DBE participants. Thus, Integratum expressed their views

regarding the potential undermining of trust within DBE participants by stating:

Integratum: "...yes, that is true. There has to be some level of

trust and, as a software company, of course we always care because

technical issues have to be in good shape…and there must be trust for

that. That is…I think that is the question somehow…that…that it can’t

be any problems in that area if someone wants to see the DBE in

future success..."

Nevertheless, SME Software Service Providers still believe in the important role that

the DBE might play in the future community building in various business domains,

while having the potential to lead some of the Providers to initial networking with

other Providers in the same locality. That prospect seems however frustrated by the

above regulatory concerns and uncertainties. Indicative, from this perspective, is

Integratum’s view of the DBE as a way to facilitate collaboration with other

companies across Europe:

Integratum: "...yes, probably…that is my goal in that project; at

least when we started with it, when we red descriptions and stuff

like that. But the reality so far has been totally different…but we

can understand it..."

B11: “So the business …

INTEGRATUM: …and what is the contractual basis with us and with other companies that use services that we

have implemented within the DBE. In that sense, contractual issues are interesting but we haven’t solved them

yet.”

Del 32.4 Locational Issues for the Implementation of the Knowledge Base

DBE Project (Contract n° 507953)

In reflecting on the SME Software Service Providers’ belief in the future business

prospect of the DBE, which is accompanied by a definite degree of regulatory

uncertainty, the Task paves the way for the articulation of a sound Knowledge Base

which will take particularly into account sector-specific regulatory issues, while being

implemented through a strictly binding and common regulatory framework and with

the potential assistance of a specialized legal team.

4.2 SME Users: Workability of the DBE platform, trust issues and

implications for the DBE evolution

SME users structured their concerns taking the view that the business domain they

belong to and the particular business activities they develop are the key determinants

for their engagement with the DBE. Since SME users use digital DBE services in a

“self-consumption” way and in accordance with their particular business needs, they

expressed concerns about the software so far available for testing and usage within the

DBE environment. They also raised the issue of trust within the DBE and between

users as a crucial measure of confidence expressed in terms of security and reliability

in the DBE.

4.2.1. Workability of the DBE platform

From the technical point of view, from the SME users’ point of view, the DBE tools

lack completion, while some features considered as very important such as the

sophisticated service factory and evolutionary environment are not yet a standard that

can compete with currently available software.

More specifically, a particularly critical approach to the quality and level of

completion of the technical features of the DBE was articulated by a Driver in the

region of Aragon, Barrabes who, although engaged with the DBE since the project

started, have very tight business links to mainstream companies such as Microsoft and

Oracle. Hence, Barrabes have expressed their concerns about the testing of the various

features of the platform and the lack of understanding of how most of these features

and tools work, questioning the future workability and sustainability of the DBE

platform:

B.11: “So what are your expectations from your participation in the

DBE?”

Barrabes: I think it’s a great idea. But I think once you come into

the real world, it’s going to be very difficult...Because some sort

of things like those called the semantic description or all of these

names are very good...Well for someone like me it is very difficult

cause I don't know how, where to start. I think it’s going to be even

more difficult with the real uses cause they’re going to keep saying:

“Eclipse can do this, but what am I going to do with this?”...Like

Word or Excel or Access, right, I only use 10% of their

functionalities, and it’s mainly because you know how it works. So I

don’t think the DBE case is going to be the same...the system is not

going to be fluent in terms of spreading the application to the real

world.”

Furthermore, once again, the idea of providing standard interfaces has been raised.

Del 32.4 Locational Issues for the Implementation of the Knowledge Base

DBE Project (Contract n° 507953)

Such interfaces are intended to define the functions and concepts available to DBE

participants but leave the implementation up to individual developers and software

development companies. Whilst this idea works where there is a standards body

defining the content of interfaces, it can fall down where there are competing

standards, particularly where several proprietary companies define their own

standards. From this point of view, an important aim for the DBE should be to define

a single standard or specification, which can then be mapped to the DBE environment

in a number of flexible ways.

For example, when asked about the workshop in Tampere last June, Nemein reflected

on the DBE platform presented to DBE partners, identifying a lack of object-oriented

interfaces and of dynamic registration of new services within the DBE:

Nemein: "...they were like more technical issues but…a…in

summary….the current execution environment makes it possible to

basically build services that are…a…how would I say it?...there are

some limits on how you can express concepts, you can’t have concepts

like these services apart of other services, they are all at the same

level and there is some sort of limitation on how to develop with the

system. Especially, what I am thinking is that our solution is pretty

simple interfaces and it is like what is it to map to these

interfaces…but our execution environment features…but those designed

decisions that we made for the interfaces were partially affected by

the limitations. So like, if it hadn’t had those limits, then we

probably would have been designing part of the interfaces as bit

differently. I think that for some other projects that there are like

doing more, more in depth, integration, the problem is just growing

stronger… We would be like pretty okay if there were existing

networks, platforms that had more features, like the IRM, CORBA and

other platforms that have some like more..."

Nemein’s concerns were transmitted to other partners such as the DBE computing

team and Nemein have expressed a desire to include more features. In their view, the

DBE had chosen a simpler approach that at this point in time would be very hard to

change.

In parallel with these technical concerns, Gabilos, that produce management software

for tourist companies, argued that these technical issues will significantly influence

the future sustainability of the DBE:

Gabilos: “…it’s everything related. If the bus is good, we just have

to put a driver in front of the wheel and the SMEs will start saying,

okay, the bus is going then put five in there and five here. If it

starts introducing the gears and the bus goes up and I turn to the

left and the bus goes to the left, I say, okay, let’s try to invest a

little bit more and try to find out how to translate those new

features in new business opportunities, right? So again, it’s a

problem whether the platform really provides advantages and whether

the platform’s technical features are working at the end of the

project…sustainability is really guaranteed by the platform itself

because if the drivers like the platform they are going to support

it.”

These technical concerns have given way to the state of trust within the DBE and

between users, raising the issue of trust as a very significant measure of confidence

expressed in terms of security and reliability in the DBE.

Del 32.4 Locational Issues for the Implementation of the Knowledge Base

DBE Project (Contract n° 507953)

4.2.2. Trust relationships in the DBE: critical issue with security and reliability

implications

The issue of trust is considered of great relevance to understand relationships between

SME users. With respect to technical issues in particular, the SMEs have argued that

there must be trust in the DBE infrastructure, as well as between SMEs who use the

platform. In this respect, Integratum expressed the following view:

Integratum: "Yes, that is true. There has to be some level of trust

and, as a software company, of course we always care because

technical issues which have to be in good shape…and there must be

trust for that. That is…I think that is the question

somehow…that…that it can’t be any problems in that area if someone

wants to see the DBE in future success".

Beyond this general remark about the overall importance of trust relationships,

Drivers in Aragon, such as Gabilos, underlined the importance of trust, whereas

Barrabes articulated a rather pessimistic view of the DBE attractiveness to users due

to the limited commercial impact of the platform and particularly due to trust

concerns with respect to safety and security risks within the DBE and among SME

users. Hence, when they were asked about the attractiveness of the DBE to users, they

answered by stressing, from a local-implementation perspective, the necessity for the

DBE to become:

Barrabes: “...more commercial...and it is very difficult to sell that

to the companies because they do not trust something that it is not

in the near area of them...I don't know in the UK but in Spain, they

are still reluctant to send the data and they want it here...I’m sure

there’s space to be even safer than in their server room but they

like to have it here...So that’s one thing and the other thing...it’s

going to be very difficult to let all people to agree, you know, with

the whole security issues...letting people get into my system, it is

very difficult..”

The issue of contracts, in which the legislation of different countries can be

incompatible, has also been highlighted in relation to trust. Whilst legislation itself

may be a long-term goal, the technical issues need to be addressed in the immediate

future as they influence significantly the building of trust relationships within the

DBE. These concerns were raised by Integratum in Finland with regard to the case of

using a digital signature system, to considering the different national legislations

across the EU, as well as to solving any contractual issues that could occur:

Integratum: "... From the contractual point of view of course there

are differences…although there is the EU, there is still something

different in the legislation of every country. I don’t know how far

the DBE can support at a common level…so, is it too much work to go

over the problems in all countries and for all details of the

agreements in this area of contractual issues for example? I don’t

know… The technical issues, issues related to technical matters, such

as e-signatures and things like that, I think it is probably harder

to solve it..."

From the same perspective, Gabilos in Aragon, who are not currently using e-

signatures in their transactions with their costumers, have shown a strong interest in

adopting e-signatures stressing the necessity for more implementation tools within the

Del 32.4 Locational Issues for the Implementation of the Knowledge Base

DBE Project (Contract n° 507953)

DBE, such as contracts and e-signature digital certification system:

Gabilos: “...it’s absolutely needed from a point view, it’s

absolutely needed because only if those contracts are available in

the DBE companies who have not contacted you before are likely to

contact you...I think it will be very interesting!

B11: Because at the moment there are no contracts online, there are

no e-signatures online. If these things were in place, would this be

for the SMEs a positive view in terms of keeping the DBE long-term

sustainability?

Gabilos: Yes”.

At the same time, Gabilos have maintained that, although trust can push further the

SME engagement with the DBE, it is not in place yet, as it has to develop gradually,

and only when it is fully established will SMEs become fully engaged:

Gabilos:"...remember the bus example okay, so the idea is that they

were saying they need drivers for the bus and to train them. But the

SME says okay, I need to see the bus because the bus is not there

yet...So the bus is not there yet...If the bus is good, then we put

the driver and they will start trying to drive. If the bus is good,

they say, okay...

B11: So if we rephrase this, we could say that basically trust is

something that is being, we know and obtain gradually.

ITA (Regional Catalyst): Obviously...the reason I cannot go with all

100% of my company over a new technology is that the latter has not

been used before”.

With respect to the necessity of building trust relationships, Barrabes have proposed

the creation of a DBE Foundation suggesting a bank organisation or a big computer

organisation to control the Foundation in order for trust relationships to be maintained

within the Foundation. In this sense, they are not in favour of multiple controllers

such as a Foundation Committee, espousing models taken from relevant mainstream

proprietary initiatives:

Barrabes: “So whatever you do, it always has to be a bank cause that

guarantees you...So that’s very important, right?...So it is very

difficult. In terms of what I’m getting here, because you ask me - if

I understood well - if different partners or just one. I would say

it’s going to be easier to start with one cause otherwise it’s very

difficult. I’ll tell you my experience: I talk with all those people

and I find it very difficult to coordinate, to get something

clear...it’s very difficult”

4.2.3. Implications for the DBE evolution

The concerns arising in terms of workability of the DBE platform and trust

relationships within the DBE and between DBE users entail significant implications

for the future of the DBE and its long-term sustainability. In pointing out some of

these potential implications, Barrabes have underlined how the perceived shortage of

trust and the subsequent security concerns have driven them to being reluctant about

using Open Source, supporting the ‘security’ that proprietary software offers to them

Del 32.4 Locational Issues for the Implementation of the Knowledge Base

DBE Project (Contract n° 507953)

and doubting to a great extent about the business potential of the DBE:

Barrabes: “...security, that’s the thing...I think there’s a big

long-term project but at the moment I would not recommend [the SMEs]

to get involved. It’s alright to do the testing and things like

that...and I find it so difficult cause, for example, now Oracle has

come to us to do their strategy for SMEs in Spain and they’ve this

big, it’s so difficult to sell solutions because SMEs need a

solution, [they] don’t care about the model or whatever, they

want...it’s cheap, it’d good, okay, I’ll buy it, otherwise I don’t

care...it is something new, open source, we’ve got the big ones

[SMEs] saying, always the same: who’s going to maintain that

platform? There’s a foreign community that supports it but it hasn’t

been tested into the business side. So my company has got a Microsoft

man or Oracle man but not an open source man...we never recommend to

our customers open source because it’s a big question...”

Even users who have been less critical about the potential of the DBE articulate

reservations about the business future of the project, as for them the workability of the

platform is an issue that will take a lot of time to be sorted out. Nevertheless, users,

such as Gabilos, trust that the DBE has the potential to survive as a business platform

pointing to the ways in which the DBE differs from other European projects in the

domain of e-business:

Gabilos: “...this project is different from other European projects.

In other European projects you finish with one dot zero and then you

start another one from scratch. In the DBE...it’s good we are

overlapping this space which has had huge work from the developers

and also from the SMEs using the platform because...they are

interested, they are using, trying to...”

4.3 Business Analysts

4.3.1. Benefits vs. Costs and long-term commercial incentives

Closing the discussion about DBE actors’ reflections on the building blocks and other

issues of interest, there are a number of issues concerning how business analysts will

integrate and help establish the BML profiles, and how to keep up with the costs of

the development in practical terms. One of the SMEs interviewed, Openscape, who

has a solid Open Source base for their business model, reflected on what were their

expectations in terms of DBE membership retribution:

Openscape”... We see that we are contributing. We haven't taken back

anything yet. The only thing we have got is £5000(pounds)towards

doing some of the DBE activities. We've put in a lot more than we've

taken out. We're going to be testing and giving feedback based on our

commercial experience.

B11: So in the short-term more costs than benefits?

Openscape: Yes, but in long term we see benefits because we'll have

an idea that it's going to work and so we'll have a bit of a lead

over other companies. We'll have a service, which if it does work

properly will be used by other people. I see that as a long way

away..."

Del 32.4 Locational Issues for the Implementation of the Knowledge Base

DBE Project (Contract n° 507953)

Other concerns for the business analysts relate to the commercial incentives for the

development of open source middleware. For instance, open source middleware often

involves the concept of a non-commercial authority (such as ObjectWeb), providing

guidance and possibly funding for development, and usually backed by a consortium

of large private and public bodies. This authority, in turn, accepts contributions from

open source SMEs, which themselves tend to operate on a revenue model (as opposed

to the more monolithic capital model of proprietary source companies). Openscape

again for example had some interesting views about pushing middleware software

releases over an Open Source model:

Openscape: "...You don't just push anything. If you want to receive

stuff from SMEs you've got to put the right structure there and they

have to decide what they want. There has to be a central authority.

There always is in open source. The authority accepts contributions

from companies. Things that are commercial tend to survive. With open

source there is a big commercial element. People are not doing it out

of the goodness of their hearts..."

However, Barrabes in Aragon maintains that the current DBE package does not have

the necessary commercial potential to survive in the long-term, expressing a rather

pessimistic point of view of how Open Source software could penetrate in

traditionally proprietary SME companies in Spain. Hence, by underlining the

importance of packaging in comparison to services, Barrabes stated the following:

Barrabes: “… You have to put the value in the service. It is very

difficult for us to sell that value to SMEs. You know, you go to a

company, they want to capture it. That’s why it’s so difficult to

sell some sort of technology to companies in Spain, because they want

to touch it, to see what it is, where is the package (laughs)...they

don’t perceive the value in the service. They might see it later but

you have to prove it to the businesses”.

4.4. Section Summary

From the reflections of SME SW Service Providers, SME Users and Business

Analysts, a critical approach to the Building Blocks of privacy & consumer

protection, e-signatures & authentication, and jurisdiction & consumer protection, as

well as to additional issues at stake has been indicated (based on the taxonomy model

from D32.2) as Figure 4 shows:

Figure 4: Reflections of DBE actors on building blocks & regulatory issues

DBE

ACTORS

Reflections on

building blocks and

other issues of interest

Regulatory issues

The identity issue as engendering business risks that the SMEs would

rather avoid

Del 32.4 Locational Issues for the Implementation of the Knowledge Base

DBE Project (Contract n° 507953)

Identification issue as tightly related to security risks and the danger of data

loss during data transfer within the DBE platform

Security and identity issues could make SME Service Providers avoid

transferring sensitive data through the platform in the future

Identification and Security:

sector-specific issues and their

business momentousness

As a consequence, these issues might entail possible implications for

authentication and costumer protection

Risk associated with clusters of companies sharing customer information at

certain level

Privacy/Costumer Protection

and Contractual Issues:

business domain and risks at

the epicentre

Proposal for division of the overall DBE business spectrum by business

clusters, illustrating the necessity for tackling this issue from a business

perspective when regulating

Contracts need to adapt to different business domains, as a single contract

will not be in position to cover different regulatory concerns arisen in

different domains

SME SW

Service

Providers

Contractual Issues

Necessity for hiring a lawyer, suggesting the potential impact of those

contractual issues on the business potential of the DBE, and bringing thus

to the fore the importance of sector-specific considerations within the DBE

DBE tools lack completion, while features such as the high service factory

and evolutionary environment are not yet a standard, so that they can

compete with currently available software

Lack of dynamic registration of new services within the DBE

Lack of object oriented interfaces. Such interfaces are intended to define

the functions and concepts available to DBE participants but leave the

implementation up to individual developers and software development

companies

Workability of the DBE plat-

form

These technical issues as significantly influencing the future sustainability

of the DBE

There must be trust in the infrastructure of the DBE, as well as between

SMEs who use the platform

Limited commercial impact of the platform particularly due to trust

concerns with respect to safety and security risks within the DBE and

among SME user

Issue of contracts, in which the legislation of different countries can be

incompatible, has also been highlighted in relation to trust

Necessity for more implementation tools within the DBE, such as contracts

and e-signature digital certification system

SME

Users

Trust relationships in the

DBE: critical issue with

security and reliability

implication

Although trust can push further the SME engagement with the DBE, it is

not in place yes, as it has to develop gradually and only when it is fully

established SMEs will get fully engaged

Business

Analysts

Benefits vs Costs and long-

term commercial incentives

for the development of open

source middleware.

The above reflections by different DBE actors on regulatory issues of critical

importance could be completed by reference to the possible regulatory and trust

concerns that software lifecycle and development might raise for the participants. This

refers to the third perspective of the taxonomy platform, allowing us to obtain a full

picture of the new taxonomy situation in the DBE.

5.0 Sustaining Trust through Software Life-cycles and the

contractual properties interdependencies.

Moving to a regulatory account from a rather technical angle, and since the Drivers in

Finland contribute to the architecture of the DBE platform, the issues of object-

Del 32.4 Locational Issues for the Implementation of the Knowledge Base

DBE Project (Contract n° 507953)

oriented interfaces and the lack of dynamic registration of new services in the

platform are at the core of the Drivers’ concerns regarding the future software and

technical development of the platform. On the other hand, the SMEs are not

particularly concerned about the software life-cycles and potential regulatory

concerns arisen during software development, deployment, upgrade, expansion and

discontinuation, while persistently supporting the Open Source model of software

development. Hence, they are not in favour of the proprietary software model,

pointing out the OS direction towards which the DBE platform should be oriented.

5.1 Software Life-cycles in the DBE and the Open Source Ideal

The software life cycle is viewed by the SMEs as an issue of no particular concern,

whereas it is argued that software and services should not be thought as a single area

of evolution, pointing, furthermore, to the long-standing workability that Open Source

might ensure for the DBE. Here, we could identify the role that the Open Source

character of the Drivers in Finland, as well as their expertise in producing Open

Source components, play in the way they perceive this area of interest. Nemein for

example explains:

Nemein: "...I don’t know basically because we are just in the DBE

from our perspectives, more like a network service than a thing like

software. So, as long as the software works up to some point of time,

we can definitely keep using it, and it doesn’t really matter if

the…what the real life-cycle is. It would be nice if it is like

constantly evolving and doesn’t die at the end…but as long as it

is…especially if it is open source then if there is any real problem,

we definitely need to work from ground, then we can…there is nothing

else we can fix. I think that open source just helps the long-

standing workability of the software..."

At the same time, the SMEs point to their preferences for the Open Source model of

software development, arguing that only this model could sustain the DBE

community and make the latter not just part of a project but also part of reality. Here

again we could reflect on the experience and insight of Nemein in Finland in making

Open Source software workable:

Nemein: "... for the DBE platform...if it is one that is going to

live on after the project ends, there are I think little options not

to be entirely Open Source …unless there is something like a really

big company like IBM or something like that, which is willing to

extend behind it for a number of years at least, a bit like, lets

say, what Sunny does…they are like heavily committed on maintaining

and supporting that platform. But if there is no like…none to stand

behind it, like IBM or the EC, then, certainly, I do not think we

would like to have that kind of commitment...unless it is open

source, I do not see how it could survive."

Gabilos expresses the view that enhancing the business case for using the DBE

technology is a very important contractual property in the life-cycle for the DBE

software in the medium and long-term support for the DBE vision sustainability:

Gabilos: “…So for example, this technological picture of the DBE is

seen as a business advantage. But what they have, they are working

with the DBE, they can start knowing or becoming aware of new

features and hopefully those features can lead to another business

working in this environment. This is a hope we are working on. So we

press, we meet with the companies, we have applications they wish to

Del 32.4 Locational Issues for the Implementation of the Knowledge Base

DBE Project (Contract n° 507953)

integrate cause mainly we have to, they have to provide, they have to

have applications that provide interaction on different applications

or providers to customers and so on. And then the SMEs can use this

as a new tool. So we have to be quite an expert in technology and

also in business, but technology is also very important. If you don’t

know your technology, you can’t take advantage of it…”

Also this SME is concerned about some of the perceived risk associated with using

Open Source, from the point of view of non-developers SMEs:

Barrabes: Well, when I first raise one issue, I mean in every

opportunity, what is the advantage of the Open Source? Well, you can

touch Open Source, you can read the code inside the DBE. The Open

Source is advantageous as in the case that your software provider

goes down and disappear you have the possibility to read the code. So

this is the case with the DBE, since we probably have an advantage

for the DBE. So for example, this is the way of competing with

Microsoft and those big software companies because normally small

companies want the big companies which have a very important

background, cause they know those big companies are not going to

crash. So my code is safe and they don’t care. So the risk of buying

an application for a small company has the result that theoretically

this company is likely, has a probability to crash quicker than the

big company. So if the code is closed, then I have, my business is in

danger, otherwise there is no concern if it is Open Source.

In this sense, the Open Source model of development constitutes the ideal end for the

SMEs, as well as the source of a number of question marks and anxieties, which are

further analyzed below. This choice is actually influenced by the need to have real

business cases that enable the use of the software cycles and platforms. A merge

within the SME of views from developers and business people aims is necessary to

optimize the software production cycles in the DBE, reducing testing times and

accelerating releases.

5.2 Software and Platform Development from a local-implementation

perspective

An issue which is broadly underlined by the SMEs was that of the insufficient Open

Source character of the project, spotlighting the necessity for further openness and

signalling that the DBE has not taken as much advantage of this model as it should.

Therefore, the provisional usage of proprietary software until sustainability is ensured

could be thought of as a possible solution. However, the emphasis must be on

proprietary software as a temporary ‘stopgap’, and proprietary APIs must still adhere

to industry standards. When Nemein was asked about the need to share knowledge

and technology in an Open Source environment in the DBE in order to survive and

further develop, they said:

Nemein: "...I said previously I am a bit concerned because at the

moment the community is not that big around the actual DBE project

and many parts of the system are still closed in a sense that we do

not have or have seen where it is at the moment or where it is

going..."

Related to the issue of openness are technical issues, which constitute barriers to the

efforts of development and integration of the available Open Source software. More

specifically, one of these issues is that of interfaces, as the current ServENT

programming model only allows services with flat procedural interfaces. Nemein

Del 32.4 Locational Issues for the Implementation of the Knowledge Base

DBE Project (Contract n° 507953)

expressed their views in these terms:

Nemein: "...the current execution environment makes it possible to

basically build services that are...there are some limits on how you

can express concepts, you can’t have concepts like these services

apart of other services, they are all at the same level and there is

some sort of limitation on how to develop with the system.

Especially, what I am thinking is that our solution is pretty simple

interfaces and it is like what is it to map to these interfaces…but

our execution environment features…but those designed decisions that

we made for the interfaces were partially affected by the

limitations..."

This, in turn, seems to be a huge drawback, as it does not allow the system to scale up

given that many existing computer language specifications have supported fully

object-oriented APIs for a decade. Additionally, it seems to constitute a key

development issue for the SMEs, reflecting an interestingly more locally focused case

of concern for Drivers, such as Integratum, in Finland:

Integratum: "...the main problem was the interface that couldn’t be

able to transfer objects over such flat interface. So, in order to

integrate our product with the DBE is really difficult and needs much

work to be done".

Their perception was that in those conditions integration was something difficult to

achieve. They also are aware that they are not the only ones (at least in Finland) with

such concerns.

Closely related to the architecture of the platform and its future evolution is the issue

of the lack of dynamic registration of new services which shows to the problematic

direction of integrating different software components, as well as to the necessity of

adopting a super interface in the ServENT core that allows a service to get full access

to the internals of a ServENT instance. Nemein’s thoughts on the subject are stated

below:

Nemein: "...at the moment you can basically register services when

you install them…like…for example, I have this open PSA system here

and I would like to install another one and if I do that, it is one

step to install the product here, and then I need to go to the

execution environment and install services there as well. What I

would like to have instead is that when I install instances of the

product, it goes automatically to the execution environment and

registers the new services automatically. This is like…it shouldn’t

really be that hard to implement…it is like the implementers didn’t

have this use case in mind…so it is like an extra feature..."

Another way the Drivers have engaged the trust of the SMEs in the process of

platform development has been a gradual strategy of participation. This is the case

with Gabilos (the view below is of ITA, the Spanish Regional Catalyst for the region

of Aragon summarizing Gabilos’ view in this matter):

ITA: “…So they (Gabilos) okay, start working with him, we recommend,

we advise you how to use the DBE with your computer application,

right. We search the new features that, from the technological point

of view, the DBE offers, and then they can be working within DBE. I

think it’s more like adapting applications, then you can start to

think about new possibilities in other parts of your business. So,

for example, in this case, the testing to use the software. So okay,

Del 32.4 Locational Issues for the Implementation of the Knowledge Base

DBE Project (Contract n° 507953)

they have to translate the technology, like for example,

communication using shared file doesn’t require you to know the ID of

the hotels, and if they are up or if they are down. So, I mean, we

have to translate those technical contents to the business content…”

This strategy has paid good dividends in terms of trust, enabling the SME developers

to participate in the DBE vision. While the SMEs do believe in the future business

potential of the DBE, at the same time they are severely concerned about issues of

software and architecture development, paving the way to further elaboration of the

regulatory impact and changes that those issues might bring about in the future

5.3 Implications for the DBE evolution

As an outcome of the above software and development concerns, the SMEs demand

more real and technically implemented codes and software integration to be carried

out, arguing that so far more paper-work than actual implementation has been

achieved. Nemein expressed this view as follows:

Nemein: "...Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah…more paper-work than real…and

that, basically, gives the concern about what happens with the DBE

once the project runs out..."

Furthermore, there are serious concerns about the lack of security features in the

software so far released and how the long-term possibilities of the project are going to

develop. Barrabes sees the DBE this way:

Barrabes: “…going back to the first question, how do I see how things

will evolve? You know, I think there’s a big long-term project you

know. But at the moment I would not recommend [the smes] to get

involved. It’s alright to do the testing and things like that; and I

find it so difficult cause we are finding difficult you know, for

example now Oracle has come to us to do their strategy for SMEs in

Spain and they’ve this big...it’s so difficult you know to sell

solutions because SMEs need a solution, [they] don’t care about the

model or whatever, they want to go there...it’s cheap, it is good,

okay, I’ll buy it, otherwise I don’t care…”

Nonetheless, the SMEs think that there might be some future for the DBE, and they

are, therefore, willing to wait to see what takes place in the DBE, before deciding

about their future engagement. Integratum for example is still committed to be an

essential contributor and participant in the future:

Integratum: "...Why not? Because this is something related to our

basic ideas, our company is Open Source and needs to relate to that

area if the whole open source world is going to that direction..."

Gabilos expressed concerns about some of the software tools being incomplete or not

ready for the SME market. Their main concern is that the SMEs engaged in the use of

DBE tools might lose interest in remaining part of the project because the software

tools are not properly evolving due to lack of developer’s support or premature

releases with incomplete software features. These situations are perceived by SMEs as

very time consuming and are seen as lack of coordinated efforts and vision on the part

NEMEIN: I think that…such a framework or platform is needed for more…like both within that

snowballs and internationally doing collaboration. It is done at the moment but there are quite few

barriers for extra work to be done and having some platform like the DBE to capsulate that would

probably be a backbone to such business.

Del 32.4 Locational Issues for the Implementation of the Knowledge Base

DBE Project (Contract n° 507953)

of DBE members. To fix some of the software problems faced, the SMEs have spent

human resources and time of their own with some success. Whilst at this point in time

the project is seen as in a testing phase and the SMEs are therefore eager to do so,

expectations are higher when the software is released as a commercial feature, hence

SMEs will not be eager to spend excessive resources fixing or troubleshooting

software features in the DBE products.

This critical and reflexive viewpoint of the SMEs on software cycles and development

serves perfectly the aims of the Task, namely the reflection on issues of both

regulatory and technical interest which have a great business impact as well, allowing

the Task to bring to the fore a certain number of observations and recommendations

for both future research and action.

5.4 Section Summary

From section 5.1, the issue of trying to sustain trust through software cycles and its

contractual properties has to be further analysed. Hence:

• For the SMEs, the trust issues associated with the DBE development model

are directly linked to Open Source sustainability (either as a model of adoption

or governance model).

• For the SMEs, if their role is that of software developers, they share the views

of the business SMEs with respect to implementing policies that reduce the

perceived commercial and technical risks associated with Open Source

models.

From section 5.2, the software and platform development using a local

implementation perspective is reflected upon the findings in section 5.1:

• For the SMEs, the local implementation of the DBE vision is a gradual

process. This process can be achieved using a small community with diverse

interface layers between SMEs developers and SMEs users, as well as the

regional drivers.

• For the SMEs, this gradual process is a better way of establishing a

meaningful local strategy for adoption and packaging of DBE software and

development in the business community.

From section 5.3, the implications of the use of Open Source models for the DBE

evolution are pointed by the SMEs as follows:

• For the SMEs, the DBE evolution as a software platform and business

community needs to be sustained by working DBE products that can be used

on commercial basis.

• For the SMEs, the DBE evolution is being influenced by the lack of DBE

products that are workable and not only benched; there is also a lack of full

documentation for the DBE software features and releases, and/or a primary

source (centralized) from where to obtain this information.

• For the SMEs, the issues being discussed within the DBE consortium about

sustainability and governance need to be worked closer to the regional drivers

and SMEs to obtain gradual evolution and development for the DBE.

Del 32.4 Locational Issues for the Implementation of the Knowledge Base

DBE Project (Contract n° 507953)

Section 6 below is a discussion of the issues presented in sections 3, 4, and 5 by using

the taxonomy and building blocks of trust for analysis.

6.0 Observations and Considerations

6.1 On the current taxonomy

The seven SME drivers interviewed operate in some of the most important areas to be

provided by the DBE, such as commerce, content management and accountancy.

Within these areas, the most important issue is trust: trust in the systems architecture

and the business solutions that provide digital DBE services, trust in institutional

arrangements providing knowledge, and trust when doing business between

companies.

The SME driver position in a certain business sector determines their more specific

concerns in the areas of identity, security, privacy and consumer protection as well as

contractual issues specific to the business domain. From the analysis in this

document, the issues of local implementation are addressed under the sustainability

title in section 6.2.

Defining the common usage scenarios and providing the infrastructure to deal with

them establish trust within the DBE members. These usage scenarios are ascertained

through discussion with SME users and service software providers, and conventional

verbal information gathering, rather than through a statistical model. One observation

is that this SME development model is close to the Extreme Programming model,

where software is fed back to the users at all stages of the development life-cycle.

There is one main difference in the case of the DBE, as the model is open to influence

from multiple SME participants rather than a single client, either as developers or

business clients.

It is also interesting to note that this approach includes relationships with non-

participants, who are also able to participate in the development of the DBE, and who,

by having an influence on the design, may have a greater interest in joining. From this

perspective, SMEs can contribute significantly to the identification of issues of critical

importance for the establishment of trust in the DBE, while commenting on the

existing platform structure as well as on the present and future of various software

models evaluating, therefore, the future business prospects of the platform.

The table below presents a summary of how building blocks of trust were identified

by the SMEs interviewed as relevant to the DBE work; the influence of the domain in

which the SME service is focused has been in some cases a strong influence when the

SMEs described the relevance of a building block as being part of the DBE. Hence,

the table below provides the Task with an overview of the emerging patterns with

respect to building blocks of trust in different business domains and localities, paving,

thus, the way for the empirical configuration of the Knowledge Base of Regulatory

Issues.

Figure 5: Building Blocks of Trust and SMEs perceptions

Del 32.4 Locational Issues for the Implementation of the Knowledge Base

DBE Project (Contract n° 507953)

Building Blocks of Trust

SMEs

Privacy and

Consumer

Protection

E-signatures and

security

Jurisdiction and

consumer protection

Nemein

(Finland)

Concerns about

how to protect

privacy in a OS

environment

Concerns about

applications within the

DBE

Concerns related to e-

signature uses and the

role of legislation

Openscape

(UK)

Engagement view

associated to

privacy

Concerns minimum,

as use is currently

limited

Differentiates between

B2B and B2C practices

Pollard

(UK)

Tends towards a

proprietary model

for privacy

Will prefer centralized

model for security

Aware of differences

between B2C and B2B

practices

Rednet

(UK)

Working practices

well established but

"wait and see" view

for DBE

Already using E-

signatures in secure

environment

Concerns about e-

signatures and role of

legislation

Integratum

(Finland)

Very similar to

Nemein since

working together in

DBE project

Relatively low

concern

No practical experience

in B2B issues

Barrabes

(Spain)

Good compliance

with current

normative

regulations

Level of expertise is

very low due to lack

of practical

experience in e-

signature

Advance awareness of

issues that concern B2B

and B2C practices

Gabilos

(Spain)

Relies on trust

model for Open

Source model

No major concerns

but also no

experience with e-

signatures

Similar to Barrabes

6.2 Other issues

In addition to the known categories described in the taxonomy with respect to the

SMEs perspective of building blocks of trust, three main issues not covered in the

scope of WP32 were further identified as relevant by the SMEs: DBE Sustainability,

DBE Governance and DBE Legal Constituency.

DBE Sustainability

More specifically, SMEs tend to prefer the Open Source model, but there are issues

regarding the sustainability of the project after the funding (provided in part by large

corporations, who have their own interests) runs out. After the Annual General

Meeting in Tampere (January 2006), it has been clear for the whole consortium that a

short, medium and long-term sustainability strategy is necessary to be defined for the

DBE. In this three-stage plan, it is necessary to differentiate between technical

sustainability and business sustainability of the DBE vision. This is echoed by the

SMEs’ concerns as seen in the content of this document.

Unless sufficient SME SW Service Providers, who make up the infrastructure, can be

Del 32.4 Locational Issues for the Implementation of the Knowledge Base

DBE Project (Contract n° 507953)

brought into the DBE, SME users will not have the infrastructure or resources

required to foster trust in the DBE as a legal entity. Hence, business analysts who

have a brokering function between the two can prove a catalytic factor for the

engagement of a far broader SME service provider community with the DBE.

The DBE sustainability is intrinsically linked to the other two issues mentioned in this

section as DBE governance and DBE Legal constituency. The choice between Open

Source community development model and proprietary model in these last two issues

will determine the feasibility of any sustainability plan to be run in the future.

DBE Governance

The OS community addresses issues of legislation with respect to the ways in which

the DBE could deal with the protection and mutual development of the platform,

while it brings to the fore the question ‘proprietary until the project is sustainable?’

Sustainability is presented as fairly problematic with respect to the existing

interfaces/services model, whilst the open character of the project is so far severely

disputed, bringing to the fore issues of intellectual property and middleware

ownership. These issues entail in turn a huge impact on governance with respect to

both external and internal DBE relationships among participants.

A way to look at this issue is to look at proposals coming from within the FS/OS

community, where the technical development model

used is somehow mirrored in

the Governance Model. This, being an innovative approach not successfully tested,

provides very challenging fields for discussion of how governance will be managed

within the DBE.

There is room for an intermediate stage of evolution in the DBE governance process,

as indicated by the SMEs during interviews: This intermediate stage could be one in

which a FS/OS Governance model is not the primary idea put in place, instead a

number of major players (E.g. Sun, IBM, Soluta, etc) could take control in turn and

for certain periods of time of the DBE governance board might help to achieve the

short and medium objectives of sustainability in the project.

However, the aim of DBE vision is to adhere to its FS/OS ethos and to develop highly

innovative governance channels, which reflect upon the FS/OS community

development models.

DBE Legal Constituency

This brings us to the point where scalability increasingly matters as relationships in

the DBE grow, posing the question of what the future of the DBE as a legal entity will

be. At this point, concerns regarding e-signatures under national legislation and

variations in legislature between countries, identification and security, consumer

protection and contractual issues (incompatible contracts between countries and in

different business domains) are all concerns of major importance which call for a

rather thorough overview of the current regulatory dilemmas within the DBE, while

raising the necessity of legal experts participating in the DBE after the project is

finished.

Van Wendel De Joode Ruben, De Brujin J. A., vab Eeten Michel J.G., 2003, Protecting the Virtual

Commons: Self-organising Open Source and Free Software Communities, Cambridge University Press

Del 32.4 Locational Issues for the Implementation of the Knowledge Base

DBE Project (Contract n° 507953)

During the last stages of this research Task B11 was able to access the specialized

support from DBE partners such as the University of Zaragoza, and looked to

alterative ways to create a DBE legal constituency such as the following four major

legal constituency forms:

• Collective Society: this is a legal model in which all DBE members might

have the same level of responsibility for the society actions.

• Common Collective society: this is a legal model in which some DBE member

might have a higher level of responsibility for the society actions than others

(higher or common members)

• Anonymous society: this a legal model in which DBE members establish their

level of responsibility for the society based on their economic contributions

• Society of limited responsibility: this is a legal model in which DBE members

establish their level of responsibility for the society based on both their

economic contributions and designated level of responsibility (higher or

common members)

Each of these needs to be explored and perhaps modified to accommodate the

principles of the governance model, taking into account the national and EU

legislation of all DBE members

In the next section, the document will present the future research and preliminary

recommendations that can be concluded from the work completed, as well as the input

provided to other workpackages in the project.

7.0 Further research and preliminary recommendations

7.1 Future research based on taxonomy model

Based on the observations from the fieldwork, the taxonomy model developed in

D32.2 can be subject to a preliminary evaluation and modification of the usage

scenarios presented.

The taxonomy from D32.2 presents to the SMEs a theoretical framework, in which

their views pose the question of the commercial viability of the DBE, whereas

Business Analysts seem to need a supervisory authority to accept OS contributions.

An authority which would solve a number of the above regulatory dilemmas has also

been proposed by the interviewees, as well as by DBE partners such as ISUFI in

M32.1-“A structural BML model for the Knowledge Base” document, where the

proposal is for the bottom layer of the Regulatory Framework to consist of users such

as lawyer SMEs – legal expert users – and government bodies.

The SMEs' views in this document seem to converge towards the ISUFI direction, as

the official undertaking of the above issues from legal experts could protect both the

business and technical potential of the DBE platform, making the goal of

sustainability and trust far more feasible in the future.

The class diagram from D32.2 has been updated with some of the methods that can be

used to represent the SMEs’ views. In figure 6 we see a partial view of these changes,

where new methods are shown together with those provided in D32.2 (column 3) to

give an overall picture of the way in which the SMEs’ view confirms and updates the

Del 32.4 Locational Issues for the Implementation of the Knowledge Base

DBE Project (Contract n° 507953)

perspectives (column 1) and the attributes of those perspectives (column 2) of the

D32.2 taxonomy model.

Figure 6: Class Diagram based on taxonomy description: the SME view

Hence, any future modelling of Digital Business Ecosystems can draw on this and

other similar usage scenarios and structural approaches that can then be integrated in

higher-order models, as ISUFI did in C-46, the Knowledge Base model of the

Regulatory Framework, in their first preliminary report. Taking into account the fact

that the work so far completed only takes into consideration the building blocks of

trust, we foresee future research in which this model can be extended to other blocks,

and be integrated in modular form depending upon domains and business sectors.

7.2 Critical issues for DBE sustainability

This document has also identified three critical issues from potential B2B practices

that can affect the Digital Business Ecosystem's future development, as expressed by

the SMEs in the interviews completed.

• The first and most important unresolved question is the issue of what is the

legal constituency of the DBE either under European, national or local law, as

well as the role the business domain has in the adoption of this legal form in

the standard everyday B2B practices within the DBE. Without a clear

definition of this legal constituency, SMEs' engagement will be affected.

• The second issue is the link between legal constituency and governance of the

DBE and how to provide for a parallel process of development.

• The third issue is the convergence between business and research aims when

choosing a model. The area between proprietary and Open Source models is

an interesting research field, but businesses do express a clear need to obtain

tangible gains from the project. Hence B2B governance is also a very

important issue to be researched and addressed in due course, as it intrinsically

Del 32.4 Locational Issues for the Implementation of the Knowledge Base

DBE Project (Contract n° 507953)

affects the sustainability and future development of the project.

7.3 Recommendations and further work with other DBE workpackages

Task B11 is directly associated in its outputs with C52, Contracts and Agreements

and C46, Knowledge Base model of the Regulatory Framework. Working together it

has been possible for Task B11 to provide input and receive feedback on the research

work done by these other two tasks. At the end of the DBE project (EU funding) a

final deliverable including the whole of the work package will be submitted

summarizing the main research goals gained in the 3 years of work.

In the case of C46, ISUFI has been able to provide a high-order model of the

taxonomy using BML that could in future be used in conjunction with software

annotated tools to create electronic libraries of trust issues based on domain or sector,

which then can be populated by the future DBE members. This model is still under

development and will in future be subject to influences from the overall DBE research

work. The modelling of the taxonomy to computational models has had great

significance in emerging socio-technical and computational research within EU

research partners.

In the case of C52, WIT has highlighted the need to develop a library of contracts that

can be used to fill the meta-model being developed by C46. Working with a new

partner, the University of Zaragoza, discussions were instigated with a view to putting

this plan into action, while the task aims through the B11 research work have been to

foster the process of putting this plan into action.

By the time the interviews in this document were completed, C52 WIT found that the

region used as the Case Study (Aragon) is not using e-signatures, or their use is

minimal. Hence, WIT’s work is now addressing the lack of use of this technology

feature as a preliminary step to use e-contracts software. This is an example of how

the Knowledge Base of Regulatory Issues is being used to identify important or

relevant areas in which SMEs have or might have to comply to EU, national or

regional regulatory frameworks.

Finally, the business workpackages at the core of the DBE have also used some of the

findings from the literature review D32.1 to expand their own business models being

presented to Drivers and new DBE partners in the consortium. Extending this impact,

the business workpackages could take further advantage of the business-related

empirical findings and SMEs’ views on the business potential of the DBE, as these

have been expressed in this document.

Appendices

1. Interview Topic Guide

A. Background questions: company profile and current business situation*

 Core business activities

Del 32.4 Locational Issues for the Implementation of the Knowledge Base

DBE Project (Contract n° 507953)

 History of activities in a digital collaborative environment

 Current opportunities and challenges that the company is facing

 Business collaboration across Europe: levels, sorts of collaborative

activities and regions where collaboration takes place

B. Regulatory concerns and legal issues raised by theory

 Privacy & Consumer protection at the level of Tryst types X, Y & Z, and

across varying Operational Perspectives (within diverse DBE

relationships, for different DBE actors and with different software life

cycles)

 E-signatures & authentication at the level of Tryst types X, Y & Z, and

across varying Operational Perspectives (within diverse DBE

relationships, for different DBE actors and with different software life

cycles)

 Jurisdiction & consumer protection at the level of Tryst types X, Y & Z,

and across varying Operational Perspectives (within diverse DBE

relationships, for different DBE actors and with different software life

cycles)

C. Regulatory concerns and legal issues raised by current business practices

Open discussion where other legal issues might be raised by the

interviewees, such as business competition, conduct and liability rules,

intellectual Property vs. freedom of knowledge, confidentiality/sharing

of information, copyright, exploitation rights, digital right

management, etc.

D. Underlying factors influencing Drivers’ concerns

 What are the main factors affecting the company in the way it deals with

the above regulatory issues?

 What is the role that the particular business sector plays in this respect?

 Whether and the extent to which the local factor affects accordingly?

E. Challenges for the DBE

 How do the interviewees anticipate that the DBE might deal with the

above regulatory concerns?

 Proposals, suggestions and further remarks from the interviewees

regarding the regulatory provisions of the DBE

2. SMEs in the DBE

West Midlands

DBE Companies June 2005

Domain Solutions (Driver)

Rob Ainsworth;

David Pinfold

SOA Design

http://www.ooagenerator.com/services.h

Hyfinity Ltd. (Driver)

Steve Bailey

Integration and

software development

http://www.hyfinity.com/

Redenet (Driver)

David Evans

Asbestos waste

management system

http://www.redenet.org.uk/

Meier Pollard (Driver)

Paul Meier

Online accounting and

e-commerce

http://www.meierpollard.co.uk/cgihttp://

www.meierpollard.co.uk/cgi

bin/WebObjects/MPMall.woa/wa/view

ClientHomePage?site=17

Del 32.4 Locational Issues for the Implementation of the Knowledge Base

DBE Project (Contract n° 507953)

bin/WebObjects/MPMall.woa/wa/view

ClientHomePage?site=17

Openscape (Driver)

Ibrahim Khatib

Web design and

consultancy

www.Openscape.co.uk

Intelligent Commerce

Enterprise (Driver)

Simon Neill (also

Moor Lane); John

Andrews

E-Commerce

Aragon

Barrabes (Driver)

Consultancy and e-

commerce in tourist

sector

http://www.barrabes.biz/

Gabilos SW (Driver)

Management

software in tourist

sector

http://www.gabilos.com

EON (Driver)

Angel Miranda

(Business Partner)

Travel agency

middleware

www.eon.es

DBS (Driver)

Vicente Ferrer

Castelar (Director

General)

Teresa Porta Royo

Travel agency

middleware

www.dbs.es

Finland

Joinex (Driver)

Jukka Harkki

Java-based enterprise

information systems

integration

http://joinex.com

Nomovok (Driver)

Java-based enterprise

information systems

integration

www.nomovok.com

Annilinker

Antti Kari (company

manager);

Lauri Holtta

(technical manager)

Java-based enterprise

information systems

integration

www.anilinker.com

Gofore (Driver)

Perteri Venola

Java-based enterprise

information systems

integration

www.gofore.com

Nemein (Driver)

Eero af Heurlin;

Jukka Zitting; Heri

Bergius;

Eero af Heurlin

Java-based enterprise

information systems

integration

www.nemein.com

Integratum (Driver)

Risto Vuori and N.N

Java-based enterprise

information systems

integration

www.integratum.fi/

MediaMaisteri

Timo Valiharju

(CEO)

Partner developing

knowledge platform

www.mediamaiteri.com

3. Company Profile

A. Meier Pollard Limited

Meier Pollard was set up in 2000 to design and build an online application to meet the

needs of SMEs wanting to do business online, or publish online. The application is

called Inrax. Meier Pollard is privately financed by its directors, who have wide

commercial experience and run several online businesses themselves.

Based on their experience the key design objectives for Inrax, which have been met in

Del 32.4 Locational Issues for the Implementation of the Knowledge Base

DBE Project (Contract n° 507953)

full, were as follows: - Deliver a sophisticated multi user application online, so the

customer does not need to install complex technology;

- Deliver a full user interface, rather than work through a web browser. This is

achieved with Java user interface which provides a richer experience than a browser.

It is self updating, so no need to manage upgrades.

- Be cross platform. As a Java app Inrax runs on PCs, Macs, Linux and Unix.

- Provide ecommerce and the back office fulfillment and accounting as a single

integrated package. This is normally a feature of high end packages, rather than the

usual web stores affordable by SMEs.

- Provide content management to allow the efficient production of web sites and deal

with content beyond that required immediately to sell stock. Inrax can be used for

general online publishing.

- Charge for the service at a rate which reflects the use of system resources rather than

limit the number of users by charging per seat.

- And making sure SMEs and non profit organizations really can afford to use Inrax.

- In addition Pollard can help businesses implement Inrax or train and help their

consultants or designers to do it for them.

More information on the company and its core business activities can be found at:

http://www.meierpollard.co.uk

B. Openscape

Openscape specialises in providing affordable and well thought out IT solutions for

all sectors of businesses and organisations. The Openscape team boasts many years of

accumulated experience in delivering web sites, web based business-to-to business

solutions and database solutions designed specifically to meet the clients' needs.

Openscape are specialists in using the Plone Content Management System to deliver

Web Sites, Intranets, Extranets and Portal solutions as well as a tool for collaborative

working across multiple sites.

More information on the company and its core business activities can be found at:

http://www.openscape.co.uk/

C. Redenet

Redenet provides Asbestos waste management system through the CORE asbestos

management system. CORE not only allows the recording of all asbestos survey data,

but does so ensuring, exact precision on the location of asbestos; the asbestos

containing material; the structure (fire door, window suffitt, etc); condition; etc.

CORE also maintains full details appertaining to properties, allowing the exact

mapping of the most complex of sites. CORE calculates the risk scores based on the

MDHS100 algorithms. CORE allows the recording and monitoring of any action

required arising from the survey; e.g. labelling, removal, etc.

CORE also allows the attaching of photographs and the interfacing to CAD drawings.

Del 32.4 Locational Issues for the Implementation of the Knowledge Base

DBE Project (Contract n° 507953)

AutoCAD drawings can be colour coded based on risk scores and asbestos type; and

exact position of selected inspection points can be zoomed to. Likewise the inspection

point on the drawing can be selected the relevant details displayed. So it is quick, easy

and accurate method of finding and assimilating relevant data.

CORE can produce many report variants from full inspection reports to tasks

required. Selected data can also be exported in various formats. The system also

retains a full data entry audit, which is an invaluable tool when substantiating

compliance, and data quality troubleshooting. The system retains a complete history

of all data allowing the viewing of data appertaining to any time in the past.

The survey data can either be entered via the Pc based system or via a PDA. Both

work based on the same criteria and rules. Each time the PDA is linked to the Pc via a

supplied cradle the two systems are synchronized ensuring rule sets are consistent,

and the data entered on the PDA is imported on the Pc. The system also has a full

project planning and costing function to manage the tasks arising from the surveys.

More information on the company and its core business activities can be found at:

http://www.redenet.org.uk/

D. Nemein

Nemein is a Finnish consultancy producing Open Source-based information

management solutions. Nemein’s solutions enable organizations to improve their web,

sales, marketing, project and customer service operations. Nemein’s clients include

Anttila, Biotie, BNL, Euore RSCG, Helsinki Business Polytechnic, Datex-Ohmeda,

Luottokunta, Oplayo and Sentera.

Nemein is an innovative software company operating globally. Since 2001 Nemein

has specialized in web business applications and solutions that are based on the Open

Source Midgard application server. By using the Midgard environment it is able to

provide tomorrow's solutions today and create a functional and manageable business

application environment.

High-quality Nemein products can be adapted in order to meet customer demands,

and they are well suited to wide range of user environments in various situations.

Nemein's mission is to become the leader in selected market segments in professional

services automation

Nemein’s connections with the international Open Source community provide the

company with ability to deliver and support solutions efficiently worldwide

The aspects of Nemein include:

〈 Faster time-to market

〈 Cost-efficient solutions

〈 Professional consultants

〈 Fast and consistent deliveries

〈 Easy-to-use products

〈 Reliable Open Source architecture

More information on the company and its core business activities can be found at:

Del 32.4 Locational Issues for the Implementation of the Knowledge Base

DBE Project (Contract n° 507953)

http://www.meierpollard.co.uk/

E. Integratum

Integratum is a Finnish consultancy producing Open Source-based information

management solutions and software integration. Its costumers are software companies

and its key aims focus on building project management that corresponds to managing

all types of Open Source.

More information on the company and its core business activities can be found at:

www.integratum.fi (in Finnish)

F. Barrabes Business Solutions

Barrabes.com is one of Spain's pioneers in the e-commerce industry, which has taken

its mountain-climbing equipment store from a small village in the Pyrenees

Mountains to a worldwide online store, which has penetrated such strong markets as

the United States, Britain and Scandinavia. Five years ago, overwhelmed by questions

from European SMEs, Barrabes launched their own consulting firm, dedicated to help

Spanish companies develop their businesses around the world One of the main areas

of expertise, due to our location, is the tourism industry. Barrabes has acted as a

communication link between IT developers and tourism businesses.

Barrabes Group Webs

• www.barrabes.biz – site to the consultancy area

• www.barrabes.com – site of the online store and news

• www.munodgps.com – site/online store dedicated to the GPS technology

• www.barrabeseditorial.com – site/online bookstore of our publisher

The DBE Project

Barrabes wishes to collaborate in the DBE project because of our experience & our

background perfectly fit into the purpose of the project. During the past five years, we

have been promoting the use of Information Technology (IT) in the SMB. Our goal is

to have the SMB realize the advantages of IT and to integrate them in their business

process.

Barrabes experience in integrating IT into our own business process has allowed us to

obtain a high degree of knowledge in the Information society, which allowed us to

gain competitive advantage and greater business yields. That is why Barrabes has

become the leading example nationally and internationally when speaking on the

advantages that IT has to offer in SMEs.

Barrabes uses its own success model to show other SMEs that want to follow in our

footsteps, how technology can be used for each specific business need, how

technology can be used to become more productive and efficient, while at the same

time accessing new markets, thus achieving a greater competitive advantage.

Del 32.4 Locational Issues for the Implementation of the Knowledge Base

DBE Project (Contract n° 507953)

Additionally, Barrabes has worked with public administrations in establishing and

developing public projects to promote information technologies in the SMB, acting as

the intermediary of information between the recipient of the actions and the

administration

Through our participation in private, public and regional programs of promotion and

development of IT in the SMB, Barrabes has coordinated the tasks of giant

multinationals with large hierarchies. This has been done without loosing our

character or integrity as a SMB.

G. Gabilos Software S.L.

Gabilos Software S.L. originates from an advising company with 20 years of

experience in the market. Gabilos is placed in Sabinigo, next to The Pyrenees of

Huesca. Sabinigo is a town with businesses, industries and in general, it is a centre of

services of the called region Comarca del Alto Gallego.

It applies and uses the meaning of our name Gabilos (spirit, energies to start a new

business) to our mean target: the development of management software programs.

Nowadays, some businesses and professionals of diverse sectors (hotel business and

tourism, construction, diet, transport, advising and so on,) are working with its

products. The permanent contact with its clients has allowed it to know deeply their

needs. It means that Gabilos did adapted products, completely, to the specific market.

Gabilos has carried out diverse programs that cover the management of the SMEs:

management of rural tourism, management of hotels, accounting, turnover, payrolls,

boards of repayment, accounting general plan...

Besides, the software products are always supported by a specialized service of client

attention in accounting, taxes, labour, completely different to the remainder of

software suppliers, based on our knowledge in business theme.

The user feels the support of a team of professionals that besides helping him in

everything that need, it does participant with their proposals, with the only target of

achieving a better adaptation and innovation with new services. Gabilos is always

incorporating improvements and new product lines that contribute total security and

confidence to users.

Among the programs of management that Gabilos Software has developed, it is a

Rural Tourism Management product and another of Management of Hotels, already

established in numerous clients.

Those software products would be able to be adapted by means of an interface for

the exchange of data among the program of Gabilos and the DBE of the European

project.

Del 32.4 Locational Issues for the Implementation of the Knowledge Base

DBE Project (Contract n° 507953)

4. Taxonomy: Knowledge Base of Regulatory Issues

*Trust types:

〈 Tryst X (service and technological solutions; business activities; knowledge)

〈 Trust Y (service and technological solutions; business activities; knowledge)

〈 Tryst Z (service and technological solutions; business activities; knowledge)

*Building blocks:

〈 Privacy and consumer protection: jurisdiction, standards, third party

countries, reputation, compliance with data protection legislation,

unauthorized disclosure, traceability or record keeping

〈 E-signatures and security: authentication, invoicing and payments systems,

certification authorities, validity of contracts, encryption technologies,

electronic storage, notification when using e-invoices, compatibility of

payment systems

〈 Jurisdiction and consumer protection: cross-border online contracting, legal

recognition of electronic contracts, legal validity of B2B contracts,

jurisdiction, information requirements for online contracts, verification of

orders, notification of receipt, SME education and awareness, dispute

resolution

*Operational perspectives:

DBE relationship:

〈 Internal (e.g. DBE legal identity and applicable rules within DBE, legal

challenges associated with the envisioned self-organising processes in

software creation, issues arising from governance arrangements, issues related

to transactions within the DBE, copyright questions, security and data

exchange in the DBE, identify of DBE members)

〈 External (e.g. issues related to external regulations applicable to e-business

activities, such as tax rules, consumer and data protection regulations, contract

and competition law provisions)

〈 Both (e.g. issues related to internal data handling processes will be limited by

externally existing regulations)

DBE actors:

Del 32.4 Locational Issues for the Implementation of the Knowledge Base

DBE Project (Contract n° 507953)

〈 SME Service Providers;

〈 SME Users;

〈 Business Analysts

Software Lifecycle:

〈 RAD;

〈 ISP;

〈 XP;

〈 Open Source

Del 32.4 Locational Issues for the Implementation of the Knowledge Base

Download
Save PDF to desktop

Email
Email completed PDF

Send for Signing
Email for others to sign

Print
Print document

NAME

Del 32.4 DBE Locational Issues For Implentation Of Knowledge Base (London School of Economics and Political Science, University of London)

View Audit Log
Print With Audit Log
Duplicate Document

Fill Online, Printable, Fillable, Blank Del 32.4 DBE Locational Issues For Implentation Of Knowledge Base (London School of Economics and Political Science, University of London) Form

Related forms

Fillable Del 32.4 DBE Locational Issues For Implentation Of Knowledge Base (London School of Economics and Political Science, University of London)

Fill Online, Printable, Fillable, Blank Del 32.4 DBE Locational Issues For Implentation Of Knowledge Base (London School of Economics and Political Science, University of London) Form

Related forms

First 20 documents completely FREE!